Author:
Ampuja Marko,Koivisto Juha,Väliverronen Esa
Abstract
Abstract
During recent years, the concept of mediatization has made a strong impact on media and communication studies, and its advocates have attempted to turn it into a refined and central theoretical framework for media research. The present article distinguishes two forms of mediatization theory: a strong form based on the assumption that a ‘media logic’ increasingly determines the actions of different social institutions and groups, and a weak form that questions such a logic, though the latter form emphasizes the key role of the media in social change and singles out mediatization as a central ‘meta-process’ today. Exponents of the weak form have convincingly criticized the notion of media logic. However, the weaker version of mediatization is itself problematic, as its advocates have failed to produce a clear explanatory framework around the concept. We argue that, although the analytical status of mediatization is unclear, fascination with the concept will, in all probability, continue in the years to come, due to the promises of heightened disciplinary coherence and status that this notion has conveyed for media and communication studies.
Reference34 articles.
1. Adolf, M. (2011) ‘Clarifying Mediatization: Sorting Through a Current Debate’, Empedocles: European Journal for the Philosophy of Communication 3(2): 153–175.
2. Altheide, D.L. and Snow, R.P. (1979) Media Logic. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
3. Altheide, D. (2013) ‘Media Logic, Social Control, and Fear’, Communication Theory 23(3): 223–238.
4. Ampuja, M. (2012) Theorizing Globalization. A Critique of the Mediatization of Social Theory. Leiden/Boston: Brill.
5. Asp, K. (1986) Mäktiga Massmedier: Studier i Politisk Opinionsbildning [Powerful Mass Media: Studies in Political Opinion-Formation]. Stockholm: Akademilitteratur.
Cited by
36 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献