La cooptación en la UAP de 1965 a 1966: una nueva oleada de conflictos políticos

5.2.1 Methodological Approach

Cultural diversity has not yet been truly defined by those developing audiovisual media policy. In fact, it is a porous, yet multiply defined, concept driving the

development of audiovisual media regulatory policy in the European Union. The exact nature of audiovisual media duality is a concept that in many ways remains abstract and unclear, making it that much more difficult to develop audiovisual media regulation able to reconcile the economic with the cultural. Additionally, the desire of the EU to reflect the diversity of its cultures through audiovisual media works while also striving to

issues of identity as well as political-economic ideologies. These factors all serve as part of the foundation that gives rise to current and developing EU audiovisual media

regulatory policy.

In addition to understanding the role of ideas in the development of EU audiovisual media regulatory policy, this dissertation research also applies

critical/cultural media and communications theories that serves as the foundation for the concepts found withing EU audiovisual media regulatory policy. Couldry (2008: 161 in Karppinen, 2010: 30) asserts that “theory is useful only if through its relative generality it enables us to engage better with the particular, that is, for better tools with which to practise our suspicion towards totalising claims.” Applying critical/cultural media and communications theoretical perspectives in this particular dissertation research provides an opportunity to explore connections between what is theorized concerning the duality of audiovisual media. It also provides the opportunity to re-examine European Union audiovisual media regulatory policy through a theoretical lens. This application of media and communications theory to communications policy research can identify any linkages to the norms that shape the formation of EU audiovisual media regulatory policy.

This dissertation research is based upon the premise that EU audiovisual media regulatory policy is on the precipice of such a tipping point, experiencing a continual contemplation and collision of competing norms—adherence to cultural diversity and seeming inevitability of near complete commoditization of audiovisual media goods via convergence. The research focuses on the underlying ideology and concepts regarding audiovisual media and how this is reflected in EU audiovisual media regulatory policy Directives developed by the Commission beginning with the 1989 Television without

Frontiers Directive. The primary aim is to analyze the tensions between the EU’s desire to protect and promote culture and exploit economic potential of the cultural/creative industries through the lens of audiovisual media goods duality. Another objective is to understand not only why the EU has embarked on its particular regulatory path but also whether it has failed to recognize and reconcile the conflicting nature of audiovisual media goods/services.

Through undertaking a normative critique of EU audiovisual media regulatory policy, this dissertation research hopes to gain a fuller understanding of how it has evolved, the factors involved in its evolution and ultimately how it is attempting to deal with the convergence phenomenon potentially exacerbating of the economic side of the media duality coin. The research applies critical/cultural media and communications theory to explore the duality of media goods and the resulting regulatory policy implications of this duality. In applying critical/cultural theory, the research draws parallels between the duality and cultural significance of audiovisual media

goods/services, and convergence and globalization with respect to the protection and promotion of cultural diversity. Chapter Six undertakes a more traditional policy research approach analyzing key EU audiovisual media regulatory policy documents as detailed in section 5.4.1. Kaschuba (2002) and Karppinen (2010) undertake similar approaches in their policy studies concerning European Union audiovisual media issues.

5.2.2 Previous Research

Kaschuba’s research used political communication theory in conjunction with broadcast policy and regulation literature to conduct a policy analysis of virtual advertising regulations in four EU countries and the United States. Regarding virtual

advertising regulation, Kaschuba makes reference to Gomery’s (1993 in Kaschuba, 2002) assertion that both traditional media economic analysis as well as normative analysis should be utilized in addressing public policy issues surrounding mass media (Kaschuba, 2002: 18). With that in mind, Kaschuba’s analysis of virtual advertising regulation policy occurs in a “broader framework of legal norms and statutes, economic principles and objectives, and political processes” (2002: 18).

This approach reflects the wider range and more inclusive focus of current policy research, especially as it pertains to media policy.6,7 ,8 Using the concept of “public interest” associated with media, Kaschuba analyzes the regulations, laws and statutes concerning virtual advertising in the EU, compares and contrasts the outcomes with the US regulations, and proposes a more updated approach for the regulation of virtual advertising in the digital age (Kaschuba, 2002: 19). The research is based upon both document analysis and interviews with policy actors.

Karppinen (2010) investigates the theorization of media pluralism and its use in current debates concerning media policy in the European Union. Karppinen examines this phenomenon through deconstructing the normative roots of media pluralism from a democratic theory perspective, analyzing the differing uses, definitions and the logics underpinning present media policy debates in Europe (Karppinen, 2010: 3). Karpinnen

6 _{See Napoli, P. M. (2005). The broadening of the media policy research agenda. Donald McGannon}

Communication Research Center, Fordham University; Napoli, P. M. (2008). Bridging cultural policy and media policy. The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, 37(4), 311-330. Napoli discusses the new approach in media policymaking, which is attempting to bridge the economic and cultural divide present in current media policy.

7 _{See Van Cuilenburg, J. & McQuail, D. (2003). Media policy paradigm shifts: Towards a new}

communications policy paradigm. European Journal of Communication, 18(2), 181-207. Van Cuilenburg and McQuail detail the changing focus of media policy and how notions of public interest and cultural diversity are under redefinition in current media policy due to increasing convergence.

8

See Rolland, A. (2008). Norwegian media policy objectives and the theory of a paradigm shift. Journal of Communication, 58, 126-148. Rolland’s article serves as a rebuttal to Van Cuilenburg and McQuail’s

asserts ideas and ideologies play foundational roles in forming media policy. In this regard, the first part of Karppinen’s research heavily focuses on theories concerning media pluralism, drawing upon scholarly literature, and the second part uses a variety of policy documents, consisting of papers, studies and reports (2010: 33). The majority of Karpinnen’s empirical analysis comes from data collected through examination of written documents, i.e. document analysis.

Carey asserts that the investigation of communication consists of analyzing the “actual social process wherein significant symbolic forms are created, apprehended and used” (1992: 30). The EU audiovisual media policies detailed are themselves significant symbols, the production of an evolution of different perspectives concerning culture, technology and political-economic ideology. It is appropriate to analyze the documents that are the culmination of policy narratives developed by those involved in the

policymaking process concerning audiovisual media goods regulation and trade.