Page 144 - Cultural Studies and Political Economy

Cultural Studies and the Political Economy of Media Scholarship 133

laden television.” Associated Press, “George Gerbner, Studied TV Culture,” Wash-
ington Post, 2 January, 2006, B4. In the era of the “War on Terror,” Gerbner sounds
so prophetic.
40. Littlejohn, Theories of Human Communication, 364.
41. Simpson, Science of Coercion, 91.
42. See Katz and Gurevitch, “Uses of Mass Communication,” 12; also Jay Blum-
ler and Elihu Katz, eds., The Uses of Mass Communication (Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE
Publications, 1974).
43. Daniel Chandler, “Why Do People Watch Television?” (1994), www.aber.ac
.uk/media/Documents/short/usegrat.html (accessed Dec. 15, 2007).
44. Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent: The Politi-
cal Economy of the Media (1988; revised, New York: Pantheon, 2002). Regarding the
marginalization of Chomsky-Herman see Andy Mullen, “Twenty Years at the Mar-
gins: The Herman-Chomsky Propaganda Model, 1988–2008,” Fifth Estate-Online,
January 2008, www.fifth-estate-online.co.uk/comment/twentyyears.html (accessed
Jan. 16, 2008).
45. Paul Cobley, “Interpretation, Ideation and the Reading Process,” in The Com-
munication Theory Reader, ed. Paul Cobley (London: Routledge, 1996), 405, 406.
46. Anthony Easthope, Literary Into Cultural Studies (London: Routledge, 1991), 48.
47. Stig A. Nohrestedt, “Ruling by Pooling,” in Triumph of the Image: The Me-
dia’s War in the Persian Gulf—A Global Perspective, ed. Hamid Mowlana, George
Gerbner, and Herbert I. Schiller (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1992), 119–20.
48. Rogers, A History of Communication Study, 29, 446.
49. Wilbur Schramm, “The Nature of Communication Between Humans,” in The
Process and Effects of Mass Communication, ed. Wilbur Schramm and Donald F.
Roberts (revised, Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1971), 3, 8.
50. Rogers, A History of Communication Study, 14–15.
51. Schramm, The Beginnings of Communication Study in America, 101.
52. MIT’s de Sola Pool, for example, insisted that “where radio goes, there mod-
ernization attitudes come.” Radio audiences in Third World countries, according to
Pool, after being continually exposed to western media, will wish to imitate modern
(i.e., western) attitudes and behavior and to cast off obsolete indigenous customs that
inhibit economic expansion. The loss of customs and traditions that this entails is
much to be desired, in the view of the media transfer scholars. Alienation and dislo-
cation, loss of referents, social and cultural upheaval, loss of sovereignty and exten-
sion of American influence are concomitants largely unmentioned by the media trans-
fer theorists. See Ithiel de Sola Pool, “Communication and Development,” in
Modernization: The Dynamics of Growth, ed. M. Weiner (Washington, DC: Voice of
America, 1966), 106–10; Daniel Lerner, The Passing of Traditional Society: Modern-
izing the Middle East (New York: Free Press, 1958); and Everett Rogers and Floyd
Shoemaker, Communication of Innovations: A Cross Cultural Approach (New York:
Free Press, 1971). For a critique, see Gerald Sussman and John Lent, “Introduction:
Critical Perspectives on Communication and Third World Development,” in Transna-
tional Communications: Wiring the Third World, ed. Gerald Sussman and John A.
Lent (Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications, 1991), 5–6.