Czy możliwa jest demokratyczna debata o regulacji rynku mediów?

• Authors: Hensel Przemysław

Title variants

EN

Is a Democratic Debate on Mass Media Market Regulation Possible?

• Languages of publication: PL EN

Abstracts

PL

Za punkt wyjścia artykułu przyjęto założenie, że regulacja sektora mediów jest problemem politycznym, który w związku z tym może zostać stabilnie rozstrzygnięty jedynie w wyniku demokratycznej debaty. W celu udzielenia odpowiedzi na pytanie postawione w tytule, przeanalizowano interesy uczestników sektora. Po wyciągnięciu wniosków scharakteryzowano dwie koncepcje (agenda-setting theory, framing effect), które pomagają wyjaśnić sposób, w jaki środki masowego przekazu wywierają wpływ na debatę dotyczącą regulacji sektora mediów. Następnie przedstawiono najczęściej stosowane na rynku polskim strategie wywierania wpływu oraz sformułowano wnioski dotyczące konsekwencji braku demokratycznej debaty dla funkcjonowania rynku mediów.

EN

The starting point for this text is the assumption that regulation of the mass media sector is a political problem and, therefore, a democratic debate is an indispensable prerequisite for settling it. The analysis of stakeholders' interests in this sector is conducted in order to answer the question formulated in the text's title. Next, two theories (the agenda-setting theory, the framing effect theory) are presented with the intention of explaining how the media outlets influence public debate on mass media sector regulation. Then, strategies of influence most often used on the Polish media market are described. Finally, the consequences of the lack of a democratic debate for media market effectiveness are shown.

• Publisher: Uniwersytet Warszawski. Wydział Nauk Ekonomicznych
• Journal: Problemy Zarządzania
• Year: 2004
• Issue: 3/2004 (5)
• Pages: 116-126

Dates

published

2004-09-15

Contributors

author

Hensel Przemysław

• University of Warsaw

References

• Akre, J. 2002. The Fox, the Hounds, and the Sacred Cows. w: Borjesson, K. (red.), into the Buzzsaw. Leading Journalists Expose the Myth of a Free Press. Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books.
• Alger, D. 1998. Megamedia, the state of journalism, and democracy. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, Nr 3(1 ).
• Bagdikian, B. H. 1997. The Media Monopoly. Fifth edition, Boston: Beacon Press.
• Barnouw, E. (red.). 1997. Conglomerates and the media. New York: The New Press.
• Będkowski, L. 1999, Papierosy bezreklamowe. Polityka, 1999/10/18.
• Bovitz, G. L., J. N. Druckman, i A. Lupia. 2002. When Can a News Organization Lead Public Opinion?-Ideology Versus Market Forces in Decisions to Make News. Public Choice, Nr 113( 1-2).
• Campbell, H. E., i M. Barrett. 1997. Cable Television And Telephony in the Telecommunications Act of 1996: Economics, Law, Regulation and Politics. Communication Law & Policy, Nr 2(4).
• Chomsky, N., i E. S. Herman. 1988. Manufacturing Consent -The Political Economy of the Mass Media: Pantheon Books.
• Curran, J. 1997. Press history. w: Curran, J. i J. Seaton (red.), Power Without Responsibility. The Press and Broadcasting in Britain (Fifth edition ed., pp. 5-108). London, New York: Routledge.
• Druckman, J. N. 2001a. The Implications of Framing Effects For Citizen Competences. Political Behavior, Nr 23(3).
• Druckman, J. N. 2001b. On the limits of framing effects: who can frame? Journal of Politics. Nr 63, s. 1041-1066.
• Eaton, H. J. 1989. Agenda Setting with bi-weekly data content of three national media. Journalism Quarterly, Nr 66, 942-948.
• FCC. (2003). FCC Sets Limits On Media Concentration. Summary of the Broadcast Ownership Rules adopted on June 2, 2003, Washington.
• Feintuck, M. 1997. Regulating the Media Revolution: In Search of the Public Interest. The Journal of Information, Law and Technology(3).
• Funkhouser, R. 1973. The Issues of Sixties: An explanatory study in the dynamics of public opinion. Public Opinion Quarterly, Nr 37, s. 62-75.
• Giles, B. 2003. Media ownership and the quality of news. Nieman Reports, 57(1), 3.
• Gitlin, T. 1980. The whole world is watching. Berkeley: University of Califomia Press.
• Goldberg, B. 2002. Bias. A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News. Washington DC: Regnery Publishing.
• Haarsager, S. 1991. Choosing Silence: A Case of Reverse Agenda Setting in Depression Era News Coverage. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, Nr 6(1), s. 35-46.
• Harcourt, A. J. 1998. EU Media Ownership Regulation: Conflict over the Definition of Altematives. Journal of Common Market Studies, Nr 36(3).
• Harcourt, A. J. 2002. 'Engineering Europeanisation: the role of the European institutions in shaping national broadcasting regulation'. Journal of European Public Policy, Nr 9(5).
• Hensel, P. 2001. Gry interesów związane z procesami koncentracji własności w branży środków masowego przekazu w Polsce. Nieopublikowana rozprawa doktorska, Uniwersytet Warszawski. Warszawa.
• Hester, J. B., i R. Gibson. 2003. The economy and second-level agenda setting: A time-series analysis of economic news and public opinion about the economy. Jourrialism and Mass Communication Quarterly, Nr 80(1), s. 73-90.
• Hickey, N. 2003. FCC: Ready, Set, Consolidate, Columbia Journalism Review, Nr 42(2), s. 5.
• Howard, H. H. 1998. The 1996 Telecommunications Act and TV Station Ownership: l Year Later. Journal of Media Economics, Nr 11 (3).
• Keane, J. 1992. Media i demokracja, Londyn: Anek
• Kim, S.-H., D. A. Scheufele, i J. Shanahan. 2002. Think about it this way: Attribute agenda-setting function of the press and the public's evaluation of a local issue. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, Nr 79(1 ), s. 7-25.
• Kosicki, G. M. 1993. Problems and Opportunities in Agenda-Setting Research. Journal of Communication, Nr 43(2), s. 100-127.
• Levin, l. P., i G. J. Gaeth. 1988. Framing of attribute information before and after consuming the product. Journal of Consumer Research, Nr. 15, s. 374-378.
• Levin, l. P., S. L. Schneider, i G. J. Gaeth. 1998. All Frames Are Not Created Equal: A Typology and Critical Analysis of Framing Effects. Organizational Behavior And Human Decision Processes, Nr 76(2), s. 149-188.
• Lippmann, W. 1922. Public Opinion. New York: Free Press Paperbacks.
• McCombs, M. E., i D. L. Shaw. 1972. The Agenda-Setting Function of Mass Media. Public Opinion Quarterly, XXXVI(2), 176-187.
• Meyerowitz, B. E., i S. Chaiken. 1987. The effect of message framing on breast self-examination attitudes, intentions, and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Nr 52, s. 500-510.
• Murdock, G., i P. Golding. 1989. Information Poverty and Political Inequity: Citizenship in the Age of Privatized Communications, Cardiff: University of Wales Press.
• Scheufele, D. A. 2000. Agenda-setting, priming, and framing revisited: Another look at cognitive effects of political communication. Mass Communication & Society, Nr 3(2&3), s. 297-316.
• Stern, C. 1996. New law of the land. Broadcasting & Cabie, Nr 126(6), s. 8-9.
• Tversky, A., i D. Kahneman. 1981. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, Nr 211, 453-458.
• Weaver, D., M. E. McCombs, i C. Spellman. 1975. Watergate and the media: A case study of agenda-setting. American Politics Quarterly, Nr 3, s 458-472.
• Winter, J ., i C. Eyal. 1981. Agenda Setting for the civil rights issue. Public Opinion Quarterly, Nr 45, s. 376-383.

Identifiers

ISSN

1644-9584