Abstract
Media policy analysis is a field occupied by multiple actors including civil servants and regulators, industry lobbyists and technological experts, civil society organisations and of course academics. It is designed to be a sober exercise in which facts are sought and consensus reached for the mutual advantage of all stakeholders. However, it is often a technocratic, evidence-based and legalistic process in which the vested interests that often structure the final outcomes are hidden and opaque. Media policy activism seeks to make this process more transparent and to campaign openly for structural changes to media systems that will enhance democracy and redistribute media resources towards those who are currently underserved. This chapter first defines the scope of media policy activism and considers the role of academics within this process. It argues that academics have a unique opportunity in which to embed their scholarly research inside movements for media democracy. It reflects on two UK case studies in which the author has been involved: the Inquiry into the Future of Public Service Television and the research and advocacy work of the Media Reform Coalition. It discusses some of the risks and possibilities of media policy activism—including questions of research agendas, methods, underlying principles and whether academics ought to immerse themselves in social movements—and relates these issues to contemporary policy debates. Drawing on Edward Said’s concept of ‘affiliation’, it suggests that not only academic labour but also activist commitment is required if we are successfully to confront the current crisis of trust and instability inside media landscapes.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
Berry, M. (2016). No alternative to austerity: How BBC broadcast news reported the deficit debate. Media, Culture and Society, 38(6), 844–863.
Cushion, S., & Lewis, J. (2016, November 28). Lies, damn lies and statistics. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/lies-damned-lies-and-statistics-why-reporters-must-handle-data-with-care-69314.
Freedman, D. (2008). The Politics of Media Policy. Cambridge: Polity.
Freedman, D. (2014). The contradictions of media power (p. 52). London: Bloomsbury.
Freedman, D. (2016). Put a ring on it! Why we need more commitment in media scholarship. Javnost – The Public, 24(2), 186–197.
Freedman, D., & Obar, J. A. (2016). Media reform: An overview. In D. Freedman, J. A. Obar, C. Martens, & R. McChesney (Eds.), Strategies for media reform: International perspectives (pp. 3–18). New York: Fordham University Press.
Just, N., & Puppis, M. (2012). Communication policy research: Looking back, moving forward. In N. Just & M. Puppis (Eds.), Trends in communication policy research (pp. 9–29, pp. 17–18). Bristol: Intellect.
Karaganis, J. (2009). Cultures of collaboration in media research (p. 1). https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1485181.
Karppinen, K. (2013). Rethinking media pluralism. New York: Fordham University Press.
Media Reform Coalition. (2015). Corbyn’s first week: Negative agenda setting in the press. http://www.mediareform.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/CorbynCoverageUPDATED.pdf.
Melody, W., & Mansell, R. (1983). The debate over critical vs. administrative research: Circularity or challenge. Journal of Communication, 33(3), 103–116.
Puttnam, D. (2016). A future for public service television. London: Goldsmiths, University of London. www.futureoftv.org.uk/report.
Said, E. (1993). Representations of an intellectual. Reith Lecture 5: Speaking truth to power, transmitted 9 August, BBC. http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/rmhttp/radio4/transcripts/1993_reith5.pdf.
Schlosberg, J., & Brevini, B. (2016). Between philosophy and action: The story of the media reform coalition. In D. Freedman, J. A. Obar, C. Martens, & R. McChesney (Eds.), Strategies for media reform: International perspectives (pp. 138–152, p. 141). New York: Fordham University Press.
Skeggs, B., & Wood, H. (2012). Reacting to reality television: Performance, audience and value. London: Routledge.
Tyler, I. (2013). Revolting subjects: Social abjection and resistance in neoliberal britain. London: Zed Books.
Further Reading
Freedman, D. (2008). The politics of media policy. Cambridge: Polity.
Freedman, D., Obar, J. A., Martens, C., & McChesney, R. (Eds.). (2016). Strategies for media reform: International perspectives. New York: Fordham University Press.
Napoli, P. M. (2010). Public interest media advocacy and activism as a social movement. Communication Yearbook 33. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 385–429.
Pickard, V. (2014). America’s battle for media democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schlosberg, J. (2016). Media ownership and agenda control: The hidden limits of the information age. London: Routledge.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Freedman, D. (2019). Media Policy Activism. In: Van den Bulck, H., Puppis, M., Donders, K., Van Audenhove, L. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Methods for Media Policy Research. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16065-4_36
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16065-4_36
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-16064-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-16065-4
eBook Packages: Literature, Cultural and Media StudiesLiterature, Cultural and Media Studies (R0)