The Question of Methodology in Critical Political Economy of Communication and the Media

The purpose of this paper is to present a meta-theoretical analysis of three broadly defined areas of academic work with substantial internal complexity and difference: mediatisation, reflexive modernisation and critical political economy of communication. Each developed a complex set of ideas and concepts for explaining elements of media, communication and/or social change. The main argument is that by looking at the intersection between these areas, a more complete argument can be made for explaining the complexity of media and social change in the twenty-first century. Two philosophical concepts aid in untangling the connections and differences between these areas. First, social ontology or the understanding of what society is and what is it made of. Second, intentionality or the understanding of the experiences of actors about society as well as their role in media and communication change. By looking at the boundaries and connecting points between mediatisation, reflexive modernisation and critical political economy of communication the paper offers an analysis of multiple ontological dimensions: cultural and social constructivist, social and sociotechnical and political-economic.

Interview with Peter Golding, Emeritus Professor at Northumbria University, Visiting Professor in the School of Arts and Cultures at Newcastle University and one of the crucial figures in Critical Political Economy of Communication. In the interview we discuss the role of critical scholarship, the sometimes troubled relationship between cultural studies and critical political economy of communication, the importance of a sociological perspective in studying media, and the impact of broader socio-political trends on academia.

This memoir, completed just before Vincent Mosco’s sudden death in February 2024, chronicles the last half century of research, activism and teaching in critical communication, technology and society from the perspective of one of its pioneering figures. It concentrates on the making of a radical activist scholar, the creation of a critical communication research field, the growth of a critical political economy of media and the concomitant expansion of critical approaches to media and computer technology, to communication labour and to public policy and media activism. This beautifully written and deeply personal book is an informative and fascinating read that will be of interest to anyone interested in Critical Media and Communication Studies and the Political Economy of Communication. “A poignant and thoughtful remembrance of his inspirational life and impressive work.” —Professor Janet Wasko, University of Oregon “Mosco’s lifelong commitment to critical research and social justice leaves behind a lasting legacy that will continue to inspire scholars and activists well into the future.” —Professor Victor Pickard, University of Pennsylvania “Vincent Mosco’s memoir is the story of a mild-mannered, but combative, activist scholar and teacher, told humbly, honestly, and, at times, emotionally, of his Italian ancestry, growing up in a working-poor neighbourhood in New York, studying under or with some of the world’s leading thinkers, and playing a pivotal role in pioneering and developing the field of critical communication studies.” —Professor John Lent, Temple University "This book is a must-read for everyone interested in the critical study of communication, digital media, and society. Vincent Mosco’s memoir is the lasting legacy of his critical scholarship that was guided by the vision of democratic communications, the public good, and good work, combined with scholarship-activism. These features form the heart of the Critical-Humanist Political Economy of Communication he helped establish." —Professor Christian Fuchs, Editor of UWP series Critical Digital and Social Media Studies "Mosco’s memoir gives us an inspiring account of the making of critical communication studies from one of its founding figures. More than this, Mosco tells us this story through the lens of a post-war era shaped by labour, anti-war, civil rights, media democracy and other social justice movements, showing us how these struggles made critical communication studies the dynamic field of scholarship that it is." —Enda Brophy, Associate Professor, Simon Fraser University, Canada "As his final gift to critical political economy of communication, Vincent Mosco gave us a vital history of the development of the field that links the personal and political. This memoir reflects Vinny’s generosity and abiding commitment to radical research and will inspire the next generation of critical scholars." —Nicole Cohen, Associate Professor, University of Toronto "The interdisciplinary field of critical communication studies has been shaped to a great degree by the intellect, moral judgment, and passion that Mosco has contributed to it over the course of a career and a life worth celebrating. This book helps to explain why we are richer because of the role he played." —Professor Andrew Calabrese, University of Colorado, Boulder "Through his scholarship and activism, his vision and conduct, Professor Mosco is the embodiment of what critical communication should be at its very best." —Professor Jack Qiu, Nanyang Technological University "In his ironically prescient memoir, Professor Mosco left us with profound insights into the life, soul, inspirations and ways of thinking of one of our field’s most influential figures. While his journey took on many unexpected twists and turns from the rough streets of New York to the ivory tower of academia around the world, he never lost touch with what he came to say: study the world, change it for the better. His memoir passes that on to the world." —Professor Dwayne Winseck, Carleton University, Ottawa "Professor Mosco continually opened new doors of research in the political economy of communication and was unwavering in his moral commitments to social justice, the defence of working people, and his own working-class family background in the streets of the Little Italy section of Manhattan." —Professor Gerald Sussman, Portland State University Vincent Mosco was Professor Emeritus of Sociology at Queen’s University, Canada and Distinguished Professor, New Media Centre at Fudan University, China

The intention of this paper is to provide a historical overview and an introduction to the interviews with Bodgan Osolnik, Breda Pavlič, Cees Hamelink, Daya K. Thussu, Peter Golding and Dan Hind presented in this special section. Following Marx, we entitled the section The Point Is to Change It! Critical Political Interventions in Media and Communication Studies. We discuss the need for critical theory to bridge the divide between theory and practice because this notion is central to all of the interviews in one way or another. We also provide a historical contextualization of important theoretical as well as political developments in the 1970s and 1980s. This period may be seen as a watershed era for the critical political economy of communication and for the political articulation of demands for a widespread transformation and democratization in the form of the New World Information and Communication Order initiative. We believe that many contemporary issues have a long history, with their roots firmly based in this era. The historical perspective therefore cannot be seen as nostalgia, but as an attempt to understand the historical relations of power and how they have changed and shifted. In our view, the historical perspective is crucial not only for understanding long-lasting historical trends, but also to remind ourselves that the world is malleable, and to keep alive the promises of the progressive struggles of the past.

The analysis of media content is not an integral part of the critical political economy of communication. The reasons can be understood in their historical contexts. Nonetheless, there is a case to be made that there exists an urgent need to remedy this state of affairs. Given existential threats to the planet, especially global warming and the possibility of nuclear war, it is more urgent than ever that critical political economists engage in one of the main characteristics of their subfield, praxis, and find ways to connect to citizens and stimulate them to become active in the public arena. This chapter argues that one way to do so is to produce content analyses of media coverage of current important political issues. By showing citizens evidence of the many problems with mainstream, often commercial media, citizens will be more likely to become involved in movements that aim at radical reform of media and politics.

Private television channels in Bangladesh have become a part of ruling parties’ politics. Without ruling party’s agreement none can get license of private television channels. Whenever a party goes to power it tries to give licenses to its cronies violating rules and regulations. It is an open secret in Bangladesh society. But the beginning of the private televisions in Bangladesh was a promising one. The first three channels--ATN Bangla, Channel-I and ETV-- got licences in a proper way during the first regime of Sheikh Hasina of Bangladesh Awami League (AL) (1996-2001). Political ownership of private television was initiated by Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) when it came to power at the end of 2001. The present AL government, after it came to power again in 2008, has been following the same path of political ownership in giving private television licences. The whole licencing process of private television is enveloped by a strong and vivid system of Crony Capitalism. Only the cronies who are very close to the chief of the ruling party or chief of the government are provided with the private television licences. That is the unwritten rule in giving private television licences in present Bangladesh. The private television owners in Bangladesh are businessmen cum politicians and politicians cum businessmen. There is a symbiotic relationship between politics and private television as well as private television owners and other businessmen in Bangladesh. The owners enjoy a status quo for their channels. It brings them very close to ruling party elites. This prompts other businessmen to invest in private televisions with political connections. If a well-funded investor proves her or his unquestionable loyalty to the ruling party or can earn the trust from the ruling party elites then s/he will be given licence. Most of the owners of private television channels belong to the two major political parties of Bangladesh, the two opponents – Bangladesh Awami League (AL) and Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP).
\nThe working journalists in private channels try to maintain their professionalism in news reporting. But sometime they have to compromise with the owners’ interests – whether it is political, business or familial. Therefore one sort of tension and potential for conflict exits between the private TV channel owners and the working journalists.
\nThe study is a qualitative inquiry applying critical theory in a broad perspective, and the critical political economy of communication and media in a specific theoretical framework. It tries to answer the following questions: who are the owners of private television channels? What are the reasons that lead them to invest in the private televisions? What are the licensing procedures of private TVs? What factors influence the professional freedom of TV journalists? How power relations work between owners and journalists, owners and ruling political elites and other stakeholders. The study finds a vicious circle of executive-legislative-media power nexus to use private televisions for owners’ misdemeanors, power abuse, corruption and malpractices. This is a continuous threat to the professional freedom of television journalists in the country. The television owners and the state-power are ready to fire journalists and curtail their professional freedom if journalists do not honor their instruction of do’s and don’ts when it is needed. If a comprehensive policy for dealing with private television is not formulated, then private television will not help Bangladesh’s media democratization process rather it will be threat to democracy.

In 1995, Pixar Animation Studios produced the first 3D computer-animated featurefilm Toy Story and it made a resounding success in ticketing revenue. Since then, every 3D film they produced has been successful. Before 2006, Pixar films criticized theunfairness of society with ironic plots, which was different from the conventional andcommercial movies, such as Disney films. This became its remarkable style and won itsplace in the film market. Due to the tendency of 3D computer-animated filmsgettingfashionable, Disney films have gradually lost their popularity. In 2006, Pixar entered anagreement to merge into the Walt Disney Company in a $7.4 billion stock swap. In sodoing, Disney tries to make profits from Pixar’s production. This study found that it is hardly to see the critical elements andthe materialification narrative style in the films made by Disney-Pixar. Instead, Disney classic narrative model is easily identified in them. This change shows the power relation between the Walt Disney Company and Pixar Animation Studios based on the critical political economy of communication (CPEC) approach.

Due to economic instability and technological change in digital media industries, media organizations and educators have encouraged freelance media workers to see themselves as individual businesses rather than a class of workers that should collectively protect their rights and fair pay. This article examines how freelance media workers negotiate individualism and collectivism, producing a contradictory freelance class ideology. It is grounded in an exploratory critical political economy of communication and sociology of work approach. It is based on interviews with 21 freelance journalists and professional writers, considering how they discursively construct their work practices and coping strategies vis-à-vis their uses of digital technology and the structural factors that shape media industries. Through discourse, these workers produce a contradictory “e-lance” class ideology as both entrepreneurs who temporarily sell goods and services and activists who temporarily resist demands from clients that they give up their rights and pay.

This study investigates the disputes between global content providers (CPs) and South Korean Internet service providers (ISPs), notably SK Broadband (SKB), over network usage fees, which Korean ISPs argue global CPs—such as Google, Netflix, and Facebook—should pay because of the substantial network traffic they generate. Key cases include disputes between Facebook and the Korean Communications Commission (KCC), Netflix and SKB, and the Korean government’s legislation affecting Google (YouTube) Korea. These case studies are examined through the lens of critical political economy of communication, with emphasis on media hegemony. The case studies indicate that global CPs adopted multiple strategies to gain power over Korean ISPs. Although these strategies differed, they shared a similar hegemonic goal: creating a regulatory architecture where they did not have to pay network usage fees. We suggest that the battle between South Korean ISPs and global CPs is ultimately a battle for control over the global Internet.

This article aims at critically analysing the hegemony of Egypt‟s business elite and the private press they own following Mubarak‟s fall. Hegemony requires the exercise of power to maintain consent under changing conditions such as the 2011 uprising and the 2013 military coup. This study answers the question of “why and how Egypt‟s business elite controls the post-Mubarak press?”. Situated within the interdisciplinary domain of “critical political economy of communication”, this article focuses on the two most popular privately-owned newspapers al-Masry al-Youm and al-Watan. Interviews with high-profile sources have been conducted and embedded into the research. Findings show that the Egyptian private press, particularly in the post-Mubarak era, is closely controlled by the business elite in favour of their interests, and indirectly in favour of the political elite – whether civilian or military. The sector‟s hegemonic position was briefly shaken by the 2011 uprising, then quickly maintained and reinforced before the 2013 coup.

Drawing on interviews conducted with trade unionists and labour activists in 2008, this article addresses nascent unions and professional associations operating in India's information technology (IT) and IT-enabled services (ITES) industries. This work builds upon the literature that is developing around unionisation within knowledge- and information-based workplaces, and is particularly informed by the work of Mosco and McKercher (Mosco & McKercher, 2008; McKercher & Mosco, 2006, 2007), whose research focuses on knowledge worker mobilisation. Such an approach, as adopted here, requires reflection on India's industrial relations regime and the IT and ITES industries’ political-economic framework in the broader context of the new international division of labour, based on the increasingly fragmented commodity production chains that are distributed throughout the globe. The central theoretical model is grounded on a critical political economy of communication (Mosco, 2009).

This book critically analyses the hegemony of Egypt’s business and military elites and the private media they own or control. Arguing that this hegemony requires the exercise of power to maintain consent under changing conditions such as the 2011 uprising and the 2013 military coup, the book answers the central question of why and how Egypt’s ruling elites control the media. Situated within the interdisciplinary domain of ‘critical political economy of communication’, it focuses on popular privately-owned newspapers and TV channels and their ownerships using a qualitative approach involving 20 interviews conducted over five years with key actors and experts in the Egyptian media landscape for unprecedented insight. The first book on the political economy of Egyptian media, the book serves as a case study and a country profile for of appeal to scholars and experts of Middle Eastern Studies, media and the political economy of communication, among others.

Drawing on historical methods, this study assesses the conventional “cyber-sovereignty” framework, which has been used to capture and interpret China’s stance toward global Internet governance. This framework focuses on political control and tends to reduce China’s policies to the attempts by an authoritarian state to elevate governments and intergovernmental organizations to be the only legitimate governors of global cyberspace. As it traces the evolution of China’s relationship with the global Internet in the past three decades, the study demonstrates that China’s stance is more complex than the prevalent framework allows and that it is both built upon and different from the US-centric, market-oriented Internet governance scheme. This study recognizes the inadequacy of the conventional framework and invokes a theory of critical political economy of communication, thereby offering an alternative model to explicate the complex power dynamics behind China’s changing strategies. The alternative model advanced in this study is based on the understanding of China’s evolving approach as the product of multifaceted interactions among a group of power-holders that include both state agencies and business units on the transnational level.

This article looks into the information society from a postcolonial subject position. It uses concepts from a postcolonial perspective and critical political economy of communication to investigate the information society. It perceives the information society as a discourse of social progress, and places it in historical context to show how imperial powers use discourses of progress to establish their control. It argues that when the information society is perceived from the South, it turns out to be a new imperial project designed to create markets for multinational corporations that own and operate information technologies, the engine of the information society. It also proposes an amendment — an anti-market utopia — to the information society to make it meaningful for the people of the South.

Internet advertising brought about many changes in communication production, distribution, and consumption. By using critical political economy of communication as the mainstay of our approach, we provide supporting evidence of the ambiguous influence of data-driven advertising dynamic on the news industry and audience habits. We look at what we define as the digital advertising gap, or the difference between the size of the internet advertising market and the total income of digital news’ firms. Digital intermediaries such as Google and Facebook are the final destinations for the majority of internet advertising investments in Europe and Croatia. A multi-sided, internet advertising market creates a fertile ground for the production of untrustworthy journalistic content. The digital advertising gap provides an example of a ‘market failure’ in which the market does not efficiently allocate public information goods. We argue that the confidence in the ability of the market to self-regulate the internet should be re-considered in European and national media policies.