LSE media policy project_Launch sept27
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

LSE media policy project_Launch sept27

on

  • 797 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
797
Views on SlideShare
772
Embed Views
25

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0

2 Embeds 25

http://lsemediapolicyforum.wordpress.com 16
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk 9

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • Upload content: papers, blogposts, data, information, links (content management system) Commissioning specific content !!! Linking website with social media
  • Upload content: papers, blogposts, data, (content management system) Commissioning specific content !!! Linking website with social media
  • Upload content: papers, blogposts, data, (content management system) Commissioning specific content !!!
  • Tend to be dominated by corporate voices and lobbies Generating a great deal of dissatisfaction and frustration within various sectors of civil society
  • Strengthen the voice of CS: better timing, pooling expertise, building networks, ultimately improving the input of more informal types of politics into formal politics.

LSE media policy project_Launch sept27 Presentation Transcript

  • 1. Department of Media and Communications London School of Economics and Political Science Kick off meeting, “Media, Public Action and Policy: Multi-Stakeholder Dialogues”, September 27th, 2010
  • 2. Some grand concerns!
    • How are media and communication services facilitating, shaping or undermining influencing citizens’ access to today’s complex media landscape, their societal values and understanding of the world around them, and their capacity for dialogue, civic action and other forms of participation?
    • Can we, academics and stakeholders, through a deliberative process, provide a critical, independent and effective assessment of the evidence base that may underpin policy or regulatory intervention?
  • 3. The project – brings together…
    • Some LSE funding
    • Some diverse and interested experts
    • Some interesting if sometimes unsung research
    • An extraordinary policy landscape
      • - A changed political landscape
      • - A fast converging and complex media environment
      • A complex regulatory regime
      • A planned Communications Act
    • An opportunity to do something…
  • 4. Evidence and policy – a happy mix? Research relevant to policy Research about policy ??
  • 5. Models relating evidence to policy
    • The knowledge-driven model (‘linear relay race’ – Boaz)
    • The problem-solving model (‘engineering’)
    • The interactive model - sustained interaction between research and policy
    • The political model - research findings as ammunition in adversarial policy
    • The tactical model - research used for post-hoc justification
    • The enlightenment model - seeks to transcend instrumental uses of research to understand and improve a given situation
    • Deliberative networks “may challenge preconceptions of research findings as fixed and immutable, favouring instead the idea that the value of research is revealed through dialogue, contextualisation and assimilation with other forms of knowledge” (Sandra Nutley et al, Using Evidence , 2007)
  • 6.
    • Innovation and Governance:
      • - Policy and regulation in the information society in the global ‘north’ and ‘south’
    • The Mediated Public Sphere:
      • - Political communication, civic engagement and journalism ethics
    • Mediation and Digital Literacies:
      • - Audiences, representations and identities in everyday life, children
    • Transnational Media Cultures:
      • - Global, comparative and diasporic perspectives
    Who are we?
  • 7.
    • 10:00 – 10:20 Introduction and welcome
    • 10:20 – 10:40 The policy landscape
    • 10:40 – 11:00 Communication and process
    • 11:00 – 11:30 Break out groups
    • Coffee break
    • 11:45 – 12:15 General discussion
    • 12:15 – 12:45 Concluding remarks and next steps
    • Lunch (NAB 208)
  • 8. ‘ Policy’ and ‘Impact’ Stakeholders
    • Government
    • Media Companies
    • Public Bodies
    • Civil Society
  • 9. Bridge
    • Policy timetable
    • Policy language
    • Media news-value
    • Ideological agenda
    • Academic timetable
    • Academic language
    • Disciplinary concerns
    • Theoretical agenda
  • 10. A Planning Grid/ Wiki Template?
    • Sources:
    • Digital Economy Act Implementation
    • DCMS Structural Reform Plan
    • (Esp re: Media Reform and Universal Broadband)
    • BIS Structural Reform Plan)
    • Implementation of EU Framework
    • Other stuff beyond ‘media policy’
  • 11.
    • Website
      • Wiki structured by the topics
      • Develop an easy way for people to upload content (Tags)
      • Profiles with checklist to match people with similar interests
    • Social Media
      • Will require quite a degree of push
        • Facebook and Twitter
        • RSS
  • 12.
    • Other examples:
    • [Please add]
  • 13.
    • Policy papers and briefs
    • Database of policymakers
    • Push strategy: email list
    • Policy grid wiki?
    • Deliberative fora?
    • Another conference (bigger, next summer!)
  • 14.
    • Deliberative models
      • All participants are equal
      • Rational arguments
      • Focus on the common good and matters of public interest
      • Consensus-oriented
  • 15.
    • Policy fora and consultations
      • Elitist
      • Highly ideological
      • Tensions between public and private interests
      • Conflict-oriented
  • 16.
    • What can we do and offer differently?
      • Provide depth and expertise
      • Strengthen the voice of civil society (incl. academia) in policy debates
      • Develop a citizen-oriented agenda
      • Improving the input of more informal politics into formal politics
    • How do we go about achieving this in terms of process for the topical workshops?
  • 17.
    • ISSUES (e.g.)
    • Universal broadband
    • Cuts and reduction in PSB provision
    • Media deregulation
    • RESEARCH (e.g.)
    • Literacy: the real barriers to take-up and use (Helsper, Mansell)
    • Arab/ minority media in comparative perspective
    • (Georgiou)
    • Needs and harms among children (Livingstone)
  • 18.
    • ISSUES (e.g.)
    • Media deregulation
    • DEA-file sharing implementation
    • Local, regional and nations
    • RESEARCH
    • ‘ Impartiality’ and campaigning online
    • (Anstead)
    • Wi-Fi publics (Powell), sharing digital content (Cammaerts)
    • Devolution and the media. (Schlesinger/ Wahl-Jorgensen), Community Media (Cammaerts)
  • 19. Discussion: What (group 1)
    • Thinking about scale (micro-policy or macro)
    • What and who are we talking about when we talk about stakeholders
      • Short-term agenda or sustainable policies
      • Clarity about positions and outcomes
    • What:
    • Third sector cuts from government and from other organizations
    • Government communications: impact of war on spin doctors and on participation
    • Local new provision and access to local information and debate
  • 20. Discussion: What (group 1 con’t)
    • Investment – BBC – licence fee and what the BBC invests in – creative productions
    • Innovation
      • Alternative ownership models, specifically news
      • In US and Europe and in other sectors
    • Economics
  • 21. Discussion: What (group 2)
    • Focus – network / project / process
      • Managing conflict
    • What:
    • UK focused
    • Digital economy in Europe as well as in UK
    • Scope of regulatory competence of existing regulators
      • E.g. internet and health and transport services
    • Internet governance
      • Europe and who responding
  • 22. Discussion: What (group 2 con’t)
    • Implications of file sharing
    • Digital public space
      • Disappeared from policy agenda
      • How to get it back
    • Local TV
      • What is local TV? Define it for current gov
  • 23. Discussion: What (group 3)
    • Began with focus – deferred to how
    • What:
    • European frameworks and implications
      • Strengths of academic network is focus on cases, best practices and implications for British debate
    • Critical and engaged:
    • Identify contradictions within and across poicy
      • E.g. digital economy bill penalizing file sharing
  • 24. Discussion: What (group 3 con’t)
    • Consequences of the bonfire of quangos
      • Audiences beyond DCMS
      • Think tanks and how to engage
    • BBC
      • Future of licences fee
      • World service
      • International / national public sphere
    • Changing models of media ownership, thinking beyond the local
  • 25. Discussion: what (group 3 con’t)
    • Universal broadband
      • Barriers – inclusion and exclusion
      • Enabling community participation
      • Challenge obsession with speed and think about other universal standards
    • News
      • Beyond the BBC, e.g. Sky and Murdoch
    • The digital agenda within the European framework
      • Citizen’s participation
  • 26. Discussion: what (group 3 con’t)
    • The question of indigenous content
      • Think about this beyond news
  • 27. Discussion of the “what”
    • Expanding the agenda and horizon
      • E.g advertising regulation (impact of product placement)
      • BFI – require research input at times
        • Intellectual property rights provide real challenge and open huge set of issues
        • Question of how to identify core issues
      • Question of how to fund indigenous content not on agenda
      • Impact of public cuts, particularly to online services, important and timely
      • Question of motivation also important, must recognize WHO is involved (e.g. who are the citizens?)
  • 28. Discussion of the “what”
    • Future role of civil society groups (Carnegie and Goldsmiths)
      • Focused on alternative ownership models involving corporations and civil society
      • Looked at question at redirecting revenue flows
      • Protect licence fee
      • Charitable ownership
      • Scrutinizing media: issue of transparency and accountability
      • Challenge of involving wider civil society groups about issues relevant to them
      • Widening deliberation critical
      • Recognize seriousness of crisis within rapidly changing landscape and also identifying innovation
  • 29. Discussion of the “what”
    • Tension between elite deliberative processes and civil society / citizens /
    • How: increasing visibility and transparency
    • Academy can bring added value – sensitivity to use of language
      • The “war on spin doctors” is actually a war on public knowledge and/or the dissemination of public knowledge
    • Citizen’s coalition of public service broadcasting / Voice of the Listener and Viewer
    • Focus on the “non-obvious” or the “too-hard” (with more practitioners)
      • E.g. the future of regulation!!
      • E.g. BBC
      • IPO / the digital economy act = how to do it better
      • Deregulation = meaning and consequences
  • 30. Discussion of the “what”
    • When / timing:
      • issues of what gets cut
      • Ofcom and its relationship to govt
      • Better sooner rather than later
      • Not always about new research
  • 31. Discussion: How
    • The problem of influencing policy makers: Positions are often already fixed
    • Policy makers looking for justification (tactical)
    • Identifying crucial windows for intervention
    • Building of personal relationships
      • Deliberative networks
    • Bring to policy makers what others don’t (expertise, best practices etc.)
    • Focus and depth (don’t spread too widely)
    • Digestible research / outcomes
  • 32. Discussion: How (con’t)
    • e-mail useful but must be used strategically
      • Smaller spaces for discussion
      • Multi-platform strategy
    • Who is audience?
      • E.g. policy oriented or to widen to civil society
    • Indirect links (e.g. key journals)
    • Organize briefings (to press / key people)
  • 33. Concluding remarks
    • Impact agenda – emerging from government councils
      • Reshaping of universities under government
    • Being able to demonstrate impact = key
      • What is impact?
    • Number of tensions
      • Critical research / administrative
      • Bypass traditional academic distinctions? Yes…
        • Academics should try to influence
        • Academics are knowledgeable citizens
    • What is the value of academic knowledge to non-academics?
      • Different players want different things
      • Issue alliances?
  • 34. Concluding remarks
    • Important to have a manageable agenda
      • Decide on several key issues
    • Value of comparison – European Union and UK important contrasts
      • Identify particular problems and solutions in different contexts
      • Pooling knowledge valuable (without doing new research)
    • Marketing academic research in think tank style…
    • Questions of public service focus on BBC
      • Beyond defence of particular institutional model
      • Thinking about public service contents in current landscape
  • 35. Concluding remarks
    • Arguments about new labour are being rearticulated in digital economy
    • Elite vs. civil society groups
      • Deliberative fora require extensive pre-existing knowledge
    • Academics have obligation to make knowledge available
    • Limit expectations – “dismount your hobby horse, my friends!”