Thussu Questions:

 

1) Thussu notes that traditionally International Comms has been concerned with government to government information exchanges but that this has now extended to cover social, cultural as well as military and political bodies.

 

Is it just that there are more varieties of significant comms or that communication power is seeping away from political hegemonies?

 

 

 

2) Is International Communications primarily linked to the globalisation of capitalism?

 

 

3) Is communications in the Cold war was framed by maters of government influence and ideology, has the neo-liberalisation of communications been a force of the End of ideology that neither Fukuyama nor Huntington examined?

 

 

 

4) Has Public Service broadcasting a major role any more?

 

 

 

5) Can the US, or any other major country, somehow use the 'soft power' of communications to set a global politico-economic agendum?

 

 

 

Chp - 1 Qs

 

1) Innis refers to communications in terms of time/durability (centripetal) and space/transportable info (centifugal). Is the play between these two types still true today or only of ancient empires? (Thussu, pp. 11-13)

 

 

2) In what way were 19th c Empires shaping patterns of communications?

 

 

3) Why did news agencies matter to nations? (Reuters)

 

 

4) How do the press and radio matter?

 

 

 

5) Why was radio so important in the Cold War?


Castells:

 

1)  Have we shifted from goods to information or from less to more powerful technologies?

 

 

2) Do we live in 'a new economy'? (pp.10-11)

 

 

3) Has much of global communications turned into the ephemeral? (p.12)

 

 

4) Is there still and important distinction between space of flows and space of places that marks out a significant politico-economic divide in the world? (pp.13-14)

 

 

5) Is the new form of the State, the network state? (pp.14-15)

 

 

 

6) Is the state being by-passed? (p.19-20)