Book review: <i>News Nerds: Institutional Change in Journalism</i> by Allie Kosterich
Bibliographic record
Abstract
the term globalization emerged and became prominent in the field of media and communication.Chapters of this section deal with the theory of development, communication, and modernization.Here the focus is on the use of media as a tool for bringing about change in society-from the dominant top-down approach of modernization theory to the bottom-up participatory approach of development.The uses of ICT for development have become a new phenomenon, and media scholars and practitioners have given it enough attention to explore this telecommunications approach for development.However, there is a strong critique of the monopolization of these ICT companies, mostly from the developed world like the US.This has resulted in the corporatization and commercialization of the media landscape at the global level, which has influenced the geopolitics of the world.The dominant powers like the US and now China have created a new geopolitical tension.While the role of the media has been considered important in bringing about change in society, in the changed landscape imported or foreign media has been seen as a tool reinforcing the dominant ideology of big corporate companies.This is called "media imperialism" or "cultural imperialism."It explains the political economy of the media and its power relations.This criticism led to the emergence of the concept of the participatory approach to media and communication for development.Technological advancement has given rise to new platforms for communication and allowed citizens to connect with information more easily.This is an interesting book, which explains how the field is characterized by a continuity of critical concerns in relation to power, influence, and domination; media user empowerment and exploitation; and social and sustainable development and democratic conditions, as well as geopolitical shifts, in a global context.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.049 | 0.029 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".