Area 808

Other Books, Articles

Bettig, Ronald. V. and J. L. Hall. (2003). Big Media, Big Money: Cultural Texts and Political Economics. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littefield.

Bogart, Leo. (2000). Commercial culture: the media system and the public interest. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Crouteau, D. and Hoynes, W. (2001). The business of media: corporate media and the public interest. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.

Peter Day. The Networked Community: Policies for a Participative Information Society. Unpublished PhD Thesis. University of Brighton, 2001.

Analysis of a variety of community technology projects in Scandinavia (Denmark and Sweden) and the U.K. (community telecottages and electronic village halls) through a comparative critical evaluation of community ICT initiatives and a critical analysis of information society policies. Day builds upon community informatics theory to develop an alternative, inclusive, and participatory approach to community ICT practice. He also develops criteria for a democratic design framework (democratic community, democratic politics, democratic work, securing democratic sustainability, perpetuating participatory democracy in the local technological order.

Dervin, Brenda. and P. Shields. (June 1999). Adding the missing user to policy discourse: Understanding US user telephone privacy concerns. Telecommunications Policy v23 i5: 403(3).

Johnson, Nicholas. (June 1968). The Media Barons and the Public Interest: An FCC Commissioners Warning. The Atlantic Monthly. http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/flashbks/media/johnsonf.htm

Krasnow, E. G.; Goodman, J. N. (May 1998). The "public interest" standard: the search for the holy grail. Federal Communications Law Journal 50(3): 605-635.

McChesney, Robert. (1999). The Internet and U.S. Communication Policy-making in Historical and Critical Perspective. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 1(4). http://jcmc.huji.ac.il/vol1/issue4/vol1no4.html

Melody, William. F. (May 1996). Toward a framework for designing information society policies. Telecommunications Policy v20 n4 p243(17).

Mosco, Vincent. (1996). The Political Economy of Communications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Napoli, P. (2001). Foundations of Communications Policy: Principles and Process in the Regulation of Electronic Media. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Napoli, P. (2001) The federal communications commission and the communication policymaking process: theoretical perspectives and recommendations for future research. Gudykunst, W. B., ed. Communication Yearbook 25. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: 45-77.

Napoli, P.(Fall 1999). The unique nature of communications regulation: evidence and implications for communications policy analysis. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 43(4): 565-581.

Selwyn, N. (1999). Educational superhighways - in the public or private interest? Internet Research: Electronic Networking Applications and Policy 9(3): 225-231.

Meier, W. A. and Trappel, J. (1998). Media concentration and the public interest in McQuail, D. and Siune, K., eds. Media policy: convergence, concentration & commerce. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications: 38-59.

Warnick, Barbara. (2002). Critical literacy in a digital era: technology, rhetoric, and the public interest. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Organizations

United States

Federal Communication Commission

The Annenberg Washington Program

> Center for Digital Democracy

The Center for Public Integrity

Civil Rights Forum on Communication Policy

Media Access Project

UCLA Center for Communication Policy

Media Reform

Canada

Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission

Public Interest Advocacy Centre

Information Policy Information Project

Britain

Chris Tryhorn, The importance of the public interest, Wednesday July 2, 2003, The Guardian.

EU

EU Information Society

Policies and Case Studies

Canada:
Our Cultural Sovereignty: The Second Century of Canadian Broadcasting. Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, 2003.

E.U.
European Communities – Council Resolution of 8 October 2001 on > ‘e-Inclusion’ – exploiting the opportunities of the information society. (2001/c 292/02). Official Journal of the European Communities.

Calls on EU member states to facilitate and provide online content and services affordably to all, particularly those with disabilities and other special need, as well as digital literacy programs and gender mainstreaming.

Neil Selwyn. 'E-stablishing' an Inclusive Society? Technology, Social Exclusion and UK Government Policy Making. Journal of Social Policy (2002) v.31, n.1: 1-20.

Examination of the UK government’s ICT-based social policies (UK Online) through analysis of documentation, policy statements, and political discourse. Selwyn points out how the focus of recent social policy has been a debate about whether or not ICTs can increase or decrease social exclusion. UK policy is, Selwyn contends, weak in conceptualizing access, as it does not consider a capabilities approach. His fear is that such policy “will only redefine a 'digital divide' rather than overcoming it” (p. 11). Also, policymaking places an emphasis on “the role of technology access as a means of increasing social inclusion and as a means of increasing economic competitiveness” (p.13). The latter focus Selwyn illustrates by describing policy on education and training. Selwyn concludes that ICT policy is weak because the overarching social and political elements of ‘social exclusion’ are “very much sidelined or ignored altogether in the ICT drive, as in the New Labour exclusion project as a whole” (p.17).


U.S.

Seattle Community Technology Program. Citizens Telecommunications and Technology Advisory Board (CTTAB). 2000-2001 Information Technology Indicators for a Healthy Community Report.

Provides a set of measurements for the state of information technology in and how it impacts the social, economic, and cultural health of Seattle. Five goals of a technology healthy city include: enhancement of local economy; application to solve social issues; use to foster civic participation; promote relationship building and community development; support the sustainability of our quality of life; and access to technology tools is equitable and affordable. Measures were longitudinal in nature, encompassing a collection of various city surveys and consultation with a wide variety of stakeholders.