CM16, Jesen 2010

CM ČASOPIS ZA UPRAVLJANJE KOMUNICIRANJEM COMMUNICATION MANAGEMENT QUARTERLY Hans J. Kleinsteuber, Barbara Thomass Comparing media systems: The European Dimension Nikola Božilović Kontekst kulture: Simbolički karakter umetničke komunikacije Darko Tadić Propaganda i film Marko Nedeljković Holivudizacija Bolivuda Smiljana Milinkov Zaštita autorskih prava u Srbiji Dejan Pralica Analiza medijskog diskursa odabranih štampanih medija BROJ 16 GODINA V JESEN 2010. BROJ 16 GODINA o transformaciji vojvođanskih lokalnih radio-stanica Sanela Simić Lokalne radio-stanice u Pomoravskom okrugu CM Ranko Milosavljević Lokalne televizije u Kragujevcu od “kragujevačkog programa” do “kragujevačke inicijative” Sanja Petkovska Sajbersociologija Marija Todorović Mediji i politika BROJ 16 GODINA V JESEN 2010. CM ČASOPIS ZA UPRAVLJANJE KOMUNICIRANJEM COMMUNICATION MANAGEMENT QUARTERLY Broj 16, godina V Comparing media systems: The European Dimension 5-20 Hans J. Kleinsteuber, Barbara Thomass Kontekst kulture: Simbolički karakter umetničke komunikacije 21-40 Nikola Božilović Propaganda i film 41-60 Darko Tadić Holivudizacija Bolivuda 61-74 Marko Nedeljković Zaštita autorskih prava u Srbiji 75-88 Smiljana Milinkov Analiza medijskog diskursa odabranih štampanih medija o transformaciji vojvođanskih lokalnih radio-stanica 89-104 Dejan Pralica Lokalne radio-stanice u Pomoravskom okrugu 105-128 Sanela Simić Lokalne televizije u Kragujevcu od “kragujevačkog programa” do “kragujevačke inicijative” 129-154 Ranko Milosavljević Sajbersociologija 155-160 Sanja Petkovska Mediji i politika 161-166 Marija Todorović Uputstvo autorima 167-172 CM ČASOPIS ZA UPRAVLJANJE KOMUNICIRANJEM COMMUNICATION MANAGEMENT QUARTERLY Izdavači: CDC – Centar za usmeravanje komunikacija, Novi Sad (Prethodno: PROTOCOL) i Fakultet političkih nauka, Beograd Glavni i odgovorni urednik: Prof. dr Miroljub Radojković, redovni profesor Fakulteta političkih nauka u Beogradu Urednik izdanja: mr Boris Labudović Redakcija: mr Ana Milojević, asistent Fakulteta političkih nauka u Beogradu prof. dr Branimir Stojković, redovni profesor Fakulteta političkih nauka u Beogradu prof. dr Neda Todorović, redovni profesor Fakulteta političkih nauka u Beogradu prof. dr Zoran Jevtović, vanredni profesor Filozofskog fakulteta u Nišu mr Jelena Kleut, sekretar redakcije, asistent Filozofskog fakulteta u Novom Sadu Za izdavače: Dekan Fakulteta političkih nauka u Beogradu prof. dr Ilija Vujačić Direktor CDC Nataša Jovović Lektura: Dragana Prodanović Adresa redakcije: Maksima Gorkog 32, 21000 Novi Sad Telefoni/fax: 021 / 425 880, 425 881, 425 882; [email protected] Prepress: Blur Studio, Novi Sad Štampa: Štamparija Futura, Petrovaradin Tiraž: 1.000 Štampanje časopisa finansijski je pomoglo Ministarstvo za nauku i tehnološki razvoj Republike Srbije CIP – Каталогизација у публикацији Библиотека Матице Српске, Нови Сад 316.77(05) CM : časopis za upravljanje komuniciranjem = communication management quarterly / glavni i odgovorni urednik Miroljub Radojković. – God. 5, br. 16 (2009) – – Novi Sad : CDC–Centar za usmeravanje komunikacija ; Beograd : Fakultet političkih nauka, 2009–. – 24 cm Tromesečno. ISSN 1452-7405 COBISS.SR-ID 218473735 4 Comparing media systems: The European Dimension Hans J. Kleinsteuber1 Barbara Thomass2 UDC 316.774 : 659.3(4) Summary: Comparative media studies have become a central research area within academic media research. International comparison of media systems has undergone an impressive development in the last five decades. This article is about the classic contribution to the study of comparative media systems and what this means for Europe. The authors present short description of the major contributions and after that relate them to the European experience. Starting point of comparative media analysis was the question “Why is the press as it is?” as Siebert, Peterson, and Schramm put it in 1956, when they published their famous comparative study which claimed, not only to explain what the press does and why, but, as the subtitle claimed, What the Press Should Be and Do. Key words: media systems, globalization, internationalization Media systems are embedded in their social environment which is both culturally and nationally shaped environment. Thus, they must be considered in the frame of their territorial borders as they are marked by the states. Media systems of different states differ. Why do they differ, in which aspects do they differ? What are the consequences of these differences? What is the dynamics which make media systems change and develop? These are the questions comparative media analyses deals with. As a counter trend to the boasting comparative media research which is based on a national perspective we offer analysis of media developments which 1 [email protected] 2 [email protected] CM 16 (2010) © Centar za usmeravanje komunikacija 5 Comparing media systems: The European Dimension Hans J. Kleinsteuber / Barbara Thomass try to seize concepts as internationalization, and globalization. While the first still start from the assumption of national media systems and look for processes of transgressing borders, the latter claims that the national characteristics become less and less important. The vision of a globalized media system is at the end point of these arguments. Comparative media studies are meanwhile a central research area within media academic research. International comparison of media systems has undergone an impressive development in the last 50 years. This contribution will try to draw a line from the fruits of 50 years of comparative media system analysis to the discussion of globalization of media systems. It will identify the analytical tools and theoretical concepts of international comparisons of media systems in order to find out the desiderata and perspectives. Siebert, Peterson, and Schramm started efforts of media systems classification with their Four theories of the press (1956) which is of some influence still today, although it had been criticized for many reasons and overcome by much more refined models. Their central idea was “that the press always takes of the form and coloration of the social and political structures within which it oper- ates” (1956: 1f.). They identified four types of media systems according to their historical appearance. The main categories they found to describe these types are the philosophical foundations, the sort of relationship between state and the individual, the aims media pursue in their performance, the forms of control they are subjected to, and forms of ownership. Based on these categories they found first the authoritarian model, dating from the 16th and 17th century, which is mainly characterized by an understanding of media, i.e. at these times the press, which have to promote and support the politics of the authoritarian sovereign. The second model emerging in op- position to the previous one is based on the philosophy of enlightenment. It is the liberal one which mainly turns around the logic of control of its ancestor. Control over the media is now carried out by the market, and the media them- selves have the task to control the government. The concepts of the third and fourth model are strongly influenced by the political conflicts of the 1950’s. Some years before, the Hutchins Commission on the Press in the USA had criticized the performance of mass media and claimed that the media need to show more responsibility. According to these ideas, Siebert, Peterson, and Schramm identified a social responsibility model of the press, with main characteristic being the accountability of the media to 6 CM 16 (2010) © Centar za usmeravanje komunikacija Hans J. Kleinsteuber / Barbara Thomass Comparing media systems: The European Dimension the society and that the state entitled to interfere in case when the media do not fulfil this prerequisite. Interestingly enough, this model was never put into practice in the USA, but European academics claim that it had been imple- mented in Western Europe with the creation of public service broadcasting. The peak of the cold war led to the identification of a fourth model, which is the communist model. It is marked by the media which are firmly in the grip of the state and controlled by it to serve the communist ideology. Classification made so far had a strong normative approach. By looking at the rationales and theories behind the press and describing these normative rationales, the description of the models itself had a normative bias as it is founded on an ethnocentric grounded philosophy of freedom. It wanted to explain differences of media systems and press performance, and it ended up in measuring the performance of media system in other countries against the background of the western dominating philosophical mainstream of liberalism. TheFour theories of the press thus compared ideas behind the press, not the em- pirical state of the press itself, and it confined itself to few countries, namely the USA, the UK and the Soviet Union. A central reference to Europe in this approach is the first, authoritarian model as it describes the early media history of the continent. This makes sense, but has little relevance for the understanding of European situation today. The focus during the days when this classification was developed was on the Cold War and the confrontation between East and West. The East was clearly rep- resented by the Communist model that has disappeared with the transforma- tion processes in Eastern and Central Europe (it might

Load more