Digital switchover of (DSO) of terrestrial broadcasting constitutes one of the most critical moments of policy change in Europe because it offered a unique opportunity of reconceptualising public media space for the next era of communication. The promise of a plural and public service oriented broadcast policy legitimized efforts of citizens investing in digitization, provided public acceptance and approval to the changes set to terminate analogue television. This article explores the policy framing of the switchover process in the European Union. It finds that DSO was constructed around overly technical and economic frames in the policy, a strategy, which allowed building an argument of neutrality of technology and hence of the steps policy-makers were making. This construction did not address the exclusion and side-lining of the social and political consequences of free-to-air reduction. The article argues that this practice provided a low-conflict policy process led by the European Commission between 2005 and 2015 and showcased a paradox on European spectrum policy. The article further argues that the governance of digitalization of Europe’s screens presents a case of highly complex low-salience regulatory policy, which means muted participation of citizens and limited public debate. Ultimately, this strategy undermines democratic practice and meaningful transparency in European policy-making as it eliminates deliberations on what constitutes public interest in the 21st media context. The analyses of communication DSO policy as a matter of polity situate well with European media governance scholarship.
{"title":"The governance of digital switchover of terrestrial television in the European Union: The role of policy framing","authors":"Krisztina Rozgonyi","doi":"10.1386/JDMP.10.1.67_1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1386/JDMP.10.1.67_1","url":null,"abstract":"Digital switchover of (DSO) of terrestrial broadcasting constitutes one of the most critical moments of policy change in Europe because it offered a unique opportunity of reconceptualising public media space for the next era of communication. The promise of a plural and public service oriented broadcast policy legitimized efforts of citizens investing in digitization, provided public acceptance and approval to the changes set to terminate analogue television. This article explores the policy framing of the switchover process in the European Union. It finds that DSO was constructed around overly technical and economic frames in the policy, a strategy, which allowed building an argument of neutrality of technology and hence of the steps policy-makers were making. This construction did not address the exclusion and side-lining of the social and political consequences of free-to-air reduction. The article argues that this practice provided a low-conflict policy process led by the European Commission between 2005 and 2015 and showcased a paradox on European spectrum policy. The article further argues that the governance of digitalization of Europe’s screens presents a case of highly complex low-salience regulatory policy, which means muted participation of citizens and limited public debate. Ultimately, this strategy undermines democratic practice and meaningful transparency in European policy-making as it eliminates deliberations on what constitutes public interest in the 21st media context. The analyses of communication DSO policy as a matter of polity situate well with European media governance scholarship.","PeriodicalId":40702,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Digital Media & Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2019-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1386/JDMP.10.1.67_1","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42301379","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Theorizing Digital Rhetoric, Aaron Hess and Amber Davisson (2018)","authors":"Francesca Sobande","doi":"10.1386/JDMP.10.1.132_5","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1386/JDMP.10.1.132_5","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":40702,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Digital Media & Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2019-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42840205","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In this article, an analysis of the over-the-top video on demand (VOD OTT) services’ market in Latin America is proposed, to account for its penetration, relationship with traditional pay-TV, content policies and current (and nowadays under debate) regulations for the sector. The analysis departs from a comparative study on the five main audio-visual markets of the region: Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia and Mexico, within which it is analysed Netflix, the predominant VOD OTT service. First, it will be argued that Internet’s potential to generate higher levels of competition and diversity from online distribution of audio-visual content has been limited by practices of vertical integration between a few new entrants and pre-existing, dominant players of the infocommunications industry. Secondly, the State’s role as a guarantor of public interest is discussed, particularly in periphery contexts with deeply structural asymmetries, as is the case in the countries mentioned above.
{"title":"Video-on-demand services in Latin America: Trends and challenges towards access, concentration and regulation","authors":"Mariela Baladron, E. Rivero","doi":"10.1386/JDMP.10.1.109_1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1386/JDMP.10.1.109_1","url":null,"abstract":"In this article, an analysis of the over-the-top video on demand (VOD OTT) services’ market in Latin America is proposed, to account for its penetration, relationship with traditional pay-TV, content policies and current (and nowadays under debate) regulations for the sector. The analysis departs from a comparative study on the five main audio-visual markets of the region: Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia and Mexico, within which it is analysed Netflix, the predominant VOD OTT service. First, it will be argued that Internet’s potential to generate higher levels of competition and diversity from online distribution of audio-visual content has been limited by practices of vertical integration between a few new entrants and pre-existing, dominant players of the infocommunications industry. Secondly, the State’s role as a guarantor of public interest is discussed, particularly in periphery contexts with deeply structural asymmetries, as is the case in the countries mentioned above.","PeriodicalId":40702,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Digital Media & Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2019-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1386/JDMP.10.1.109_1","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41522536","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Editorial","authors":"Petros Iosifidis","doi":"10.1386/jdmp.10.1.3_2","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1386/jdmp.10.1.3_2","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":40702,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Digital Media & Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2019-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44188809","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Platform Power and Policy in Transforming Television Markets, Tom Evens and Karen Donders (2018)","authors":"M. Michalis","doi":"10.1386/JDMP.10.1.129_5","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1386/JDMP.10.1.129_5","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":40702,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Digital Media & Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2019-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42572658","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This commentary proposes a public campaign to counter the threat to standards of journalism posed by the expansion of digital media. It looks in particular at the lack of editorial oversight of material purporting to be news offered by Internet search and social media services. The call to regulate these services in order to combat so-called ‘fake news’ comes up against the awkward question of ‘who would regulate in the name of whom?’. To picture a way forward it is necessary to understand the governance framework within which these services operate. This leads to the answer that effective action will require pressure from civil society and the traditional media.
{"title":"The digital democratic dividend","authors":"M. Starks","doi":"10.1386/JDMP.10.1.19_1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1386/JDMP.10.1.19_1","url":null,"abstract":"This commentary proposes a public campaign to counter the threat to standards of journalism posed by the expansion of digital media. It looks in particular at the lack of editorial oversight of material purporting to be news offered by Internet search and social media services. The call to regulate these services in order to combat so-called ‘fake news’ comes up against the awkward question of ‘who would regulate in the name of whom?’. To picture a way forward it is necessary to understand the governance framework within which these services operate. This leads to the answer that effective action will require pressure from civil society and the traditional media.","PeriodicalId":40702,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Digital Media & Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2019-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1386/JDMP.10.1.19_1","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47930538","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The formation of a new coalition government in New Zealand in the wake of the 2017 election ended three terms of National-led governments and raised the prospect of a significant shift in media policy. National had insisted that in the digital media ecology, the funding of public broadcasting institutions was no longer a priority and that platform-neutral contestable funding of local content would ensure the quality and diversity of content. This saw the demise of the TVNZ Charter and its two commercial-free channels (TVNZ 6 and 7), while both Radio New Zealand (RNZ) and the local content funding agency, NZ On Air, had their funding frozen. The 2017 election of the Labour-NZ First-Green government came with the promise of an additional investment of NZ$38m in public media, the expansion of RNZ’s remit to include a commercial-free television channel, and the establishment of an independent commission to assess funding needs for public media. However, the media ecology Labour now faces entails new policy complexities. Deregulation, financialization and convergence have not only intensified commercial pressures on the media, they have led to important shifts in the ways audiences discover and engage with media content. In turn, this complicates the traditional models of state intervention intended to deliver public service outcomes. Adopting a critical institutionalist framework this article will highlight key shifts in media policy trajectory since 1999 and highlight some key differences between the public broadcasting initiatives of 1999–2008 and the approach thus far of the incoming government. The article analyses how competing intra-party and inter-ministerial priorities have circumscribed the media policy options available and thereby highlight the way political–economic interests in the media ecology manifest in public policy.
2017年大选后，新西兰组建了新的联合政府，结束了三届国家领导的政府，并提出了媒体政策发生重大转变的可能性。National坚持认为，在数字媒体生态中，公共广播机构的资金不再是优先事项，对本地内容的平台中立的可竞争资金将确保内容的质量和多样性。这导致了TVNZ宪章及其两个商业免费频道（TVNZ 6和7）的消亡，而新西兰广播电台（RNZ）和当地内容资助机构NZ On Air的资金都被冻结。2017年，工党-新西兰第一绿党政府在选举中承诺向公共媒体追加3800万新西兰元的投资，扩大RNZ的职权范围，包括一个商业免费电视频道，并成立了一个独立委员会来评估公共媒体的资金需求。然而，工党现在面临的媒体生态带来了新的政策复杂性。放松监管、金融化和融合不仅加剧了媒体的商业压力，还导致观众发现和参与媒体内容的方式发生了重要转变。反过来，这使旨在提供公共服务成果的传统国家干预模式变得复杂。本文采用了一个关键的制度主义框架，将强调自1999年以来媒体政策轨迹的关键转变，并强调1999-2008年的公共广播举措与新政府迄今为止的做法之间的一些关键差异。文章分析了相互竞争的党内和部际优先事项如何限制了可用的媒体政策选择，从而突出了媒体生态中的政治-经济利益在公共政策中的表现方式。
{"title":"The return of public media policy in New Zealand: New hope or lost cause?","authors":"P. Thompson","doi":"10.1386/JDMP.10.1.89_1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1386/JDMP.10.1.89_1","url":null,"abstract":"The formation of a new coalition government in New Zealand in the wake of the 2017 election ended three terms of National-led governments and raised the prospect of a significant shift in media policy. National had insisted that in the digital media ecology, the funding of public broadcasting institutions was no longer a priority and that platform-neutral contestable funding of local content would ensure the quality and diversity of content. This saw the demise of the TVNZ Charter and its two commercial-free channels (TVNZ 6 and 7), while both Radio New Zealand (RNZ) and the local content funding agency, NZ On Air, had their funding frozen. The 2017 election of the Labour-NZ First-Green government came with the promise of an additional investment of NZ$38m in public media, the expansion of RNZ’s remit to include a commercial-free television channel, and the establishment of an independent commission to assess funding needs for public media. However, the media ecology Labour now faces entails new policy complexities. Deregulation, financialization and convergence have not only intensified commercial pressures on the media, they have led to important shifts in the ways audiences discover and engage with media content. In turn, this complicates the traditional models of state intervention intended to deliver public service outcomes. Adopting a critical institutionalist framework this article will highlight key shifts in media policy trajectory since 1999 and highlight some key differences between the public broadcasting initiatives of 1999–2008 and the approach thus far of the incoming government. The article analyses how competing intra-party and inter-ministerial priorities have circumscribed the media policy options available and thereby highlight the way political–economic interests in the media ecology manifest in public policy.","PeriodicalId":40702,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Digital Media & Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2019-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1386/JDMP.10.1.89_1","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47091683","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article identifies the current global ‘techlash’ towards the major digital and social media platforms as providing the context for a renewed debate about whether these digital platform companies are effectively media companies (publishers and broadcasters of media content), and implications this has for twenty-first-century media policy. It identifies content moderation as a critical site around which such debates are being played out, and considers the challenges arising as national and regionally based regulatory options are considered for digital platforms that are ‘born global’. It considers the shifting balance between the ‘social contract’ of public interest obligations and democratic rights of free speech and freedom of expression.
{"title":"Internet regulation as media policy: Rethinking the question of digital communication platform governance","authors":"T. Flew, Fiona Martin, Nicolas Suzor","doi":"10.1386/JDMP.10.1.33_1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1386/JDMP.10.1.33_1","url":null,"abstract":"This article identifies the current global ‘techlash’ towards the major digital and social media platforms as providing the context for a renewed debate about whether these digital platform companies are effectively media companies (publishers and broadcasters of media content), and implications this has for twenty-first-century media policy. It identifies content moderation as a critical site around which such debates are being played out, and considers the challenges arising as national and regionally based regulatory options are considered for digital platforms that are ‘born global’. It considers the shifting balance between the ‘social contract’ of public interest obligations and democratic rights of free speech and freedom of expression.","PeriodicalId":40702,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Digital Media & Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2019-02-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1386/JDMP.10.1.33_1","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44140725","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：