Read Aloud the Text Content

This audio was created by Woord's Text to Speech service by content creators from all around the world.

Text Content or SSML code:

McChesney, The political economy of communication 115 not genuine intellectuals. To the contrary, communication should reaffirm its attach- ment and commitment to journalism and other public service values. Communication should work closely with scholars in education and library science who face related problems. And when we do we will have something very original and very important to say to our fellow scholars and our fellow citizens. Finally, communication, like all other academic work, does not take place in a vacuum. There is a core relationship between the range and caliber of debate in the broader political culture, and the range of possibilities within the academy. When debate is wide ranging and lively and popular forces are organized and engaged, intellectual life blossoms as never before. And when political culture shrivels under the thumb of oligarchy, it is only a matter of time until the wells of intellectual originality and integrity dry up on campuses. The point is that in the broadest sense thinking politically and acting politically should not be regarded as something optional for the intellectual, to be pursued in one's spare time. Politics, in the broadest sense of the term, should permeate all of our works. Because, in the end, politics does permeate all of our works. Conclusion Communication scholars must play a central role in analyzing, debating and popularizing issues concerning the relationship of media and democracy. This is an area that conventional politicians and the corporate media have shown little inclination to pursue. Only communication scholars have the resources and insti- tutional basis to move forward with honest independent scholarship and instruction, with a commitment first and foremost to democratic values. The field of com- munication needs to apply the full weight of its intellectual traditions and method- ologies to the daunting questions before us. They desperately require scholarly attention. The lesson of the last 50 years on US campuses is clear: if the field of communication does not do it, nobody else will. It will make for a rocky road, but what other choice is there? Political economy and communication have a special relationship. Each of them is located uneasily but necessarily between capitalism and democracy; each deals directly with commercial and material issues and each is ultimately concerned with issues of social justice and political self-government. While one can be a political economist and have only a passing interest in communication issues, the need to at least have a passing interest has grown considerably in this, the so-called Information Age. And if one is a scholar of communication, it strikes me as highly questionable not to have a working knowledge of political economy, in order to understand how capitalism works. To approach communication without political economy is similar to playing the piano wearing mittens. If scholars are to move beyond description to explanation, political economy must be at the center of the enterprise. It is not the only necessary aspect of the field of communication, but it is one of the cornerstones. To be effective communication scholars must sidestep the demoralization and political pessimism of these neoliberal times, and view the present as history. It is tempting to look at the decline of popular movements and the ascension of business to its commanding position in society and say this shows the futility of opposing capital, and that it is utopian and absurd to think it possible to do more than eke out small concessions on the margins. One could speculate that the heroes of yesteryear - the Williamses, the Innises, the Orwells – living in 2000 would abandon or 'downsize' their principles, thinking that surrender was the only option. But when one looks at the USA and the world today, where even the social