What Next?

The next section of the book presents four cases. First, it demonstrates how the utilitarian regime has led to a growing digital divide between dominant and marginal communities. Then it describes how marginalized communities can utilize contemporary media to improve their position in society. To put the potential of contemporary media in their hands, a transition to policies with a redistributive focus needs to take place.


Britz, J., Hoffmann, A., Ponelis, S., Zimmer, M., & Lor, P. (2012). On considering the application of Amartya Sen’s capability approach to an information- based rights framework. Information Development, 29(2), 106-113.

Chin, A. (1997). Making the World Wide Web safe for democracy: A medium- specific first amendment analysis. Hastings Communications and Entertainment Law Journal, 19, 309-338.

Collins, R. (2004). From monopolies, virtual monopolies and oligopolies to ... what? Media policy and convergence in South Africa and the United Kingdom. The Southern African Journal ofInformation and Communication, 5, 23-39. Couldry, N. (2010). Why voice matters: Culture and politics after neoliberalism. Los Angeles: Sage.

Douglas, D. (2015). Towards a just and fair internet: Applying Rawls’ principles of justice to internet regulation. Ethics in Information Technology, 17, 57-74. Drale, C. (2004). Communication media in a democratic society. Communication Law and Policy, 9, 213-235.

Duff, A. (2006). Neo-Rawlsian co-ordinates: Notes on a theory of justice for the information age. International Review ofInformation Ethics, 6, 17-22.

Duff, A. (2011). The Rawls-Tawney theorem and the digital divide in postindustrial society. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(3), 604-612.

Elliot, D. (2007). Getting Mill Right. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 22(2&3), 100-112.

Garnham, N. (1997). Amartya Sen’s “capabilities” approach to the evaluation of welfare: Its application to communications. In A. Calabrese & J.-C. Brugleman (Eds.), Communication, citizenship and social policy (pp. 113-124). Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield.

Hesmondhalgh, D. (2016). Capitalism and the media: moral economy, well-being and capabilities. Media, Culture & Society. doi:10.1177/0163443716643153

Heyman, S. (1999). State-supported speech. Wisconsin Law Review, 1999, 1119-1198.

Liveruow, L., & Farb, S. (2003). Information and equity. Annual review of information science and technology, 37(1), 499-540.

Mansell, R. (2002). From digital divides to digital entitlements in knowledge societies. Current Sociology, 50(3), 407-426.

Pool, I. (1974). The rise of communication policy research. Journal of Communication, 24(2), 31-42.

Pool, I. (1984). Technologies of freedom. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.

Rao, S. (2013). Amartya Sen’s value to media scholars. Media Asia, 40(3), 215-218.

Redish, M., & Klaudis, K. (1999). The right of expressive access in first amendment theory: Redistributive values and the democratic dilemma. Northwestern University Law Review, 93(4), 1083-1134.

Reinard, J., & Ortiz, S. (2005). Communication law and policy: The state of research and theory. Journal ofCommunication, 55(3), 594-631.

Sama, L., & Shoaf, V. (2002). Ethics on the Web: Applying moral decision-making to the new media. Journal of Business Ethics, 36, 93-103.

Sen, A, (2012). The glory and the blemishes of the Indian news media. Available at: http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/the-glory-and-the-blemishes-of- the-indian-news-media/article2781128.ece

Sen, A., & Dreze, J. (1989). Hunger and public action. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Siebert, F., Peterson, T., & Schramm, W. (1956). Four theories of the press: The authoritarian, libertarian, social responsibility, and soviet communist concepts of what the press should be and do. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.

Tirosh, N. (2016). Reconsidering the ‘right to be forgotten’—Memory rights and the right to memory in the new media era. Media, Culture & Society DOI: 10.1177/0163443716674361

Toboso, M. (2011). Rethinking disability in Amartya Sen’s approach: ICT and equality of opportunity. Ethics and Information Technology, 13, 107-118.

< Prev   CONTENTS   Source   Next >