Daya Thussu discusses in her chapter “Creating a global communication infrastructure,” the shift in communication policy that occurred in the 1980s and 1990s in which deregulation dominated the policy landscape. This deregulation drastically altered and impacted both the international market-as depicted in her article through the discussion of the world’s satellite industry-and the United States’ domestic market.
Avshalom Ginosar contributes a foundational framework for understanding this new communications landscape in his article “Media Governance: A Conceptual Framework or Merely a Buzz Word?” In this article, Ginsor describes different foundations by which we can understand the many communication systems that exist and states that “once the governance type of a communication system is exposed, it is possible to point to the type of system that might exist.” In this statement Ginsor demonstrates how governance is pluralistic in nature. It involves numerous institutions, stakeholders, policies, modes, mechanisms, and levels. As Ginsor states “the communication and media world is much more complex, diverse, and dynamic than in the past.”
So does the politics of governance matter in communication?Absolutely, as Ginsor shows, governance is a holistic process that involves many elements and actors who influence legislation and policy, which also impact the norms of how we communicate. The outcomes of these influences ultimately dictates how we communicate.
Thussu, Daya Kishan. International communication: Continuity and change. London: Arnold, 2000.
Ginosar, Avshalom. “Media Governance: A Conceptual Framework or Merely a Buzz Word?.” Communication Theory 23.4 (2013): 356-374.