TELEVISION FUTURES IN AUSTRALIA

If you have found this article useful and you think it is important that researchers across the world have access, please consider donating, to ensure that this valuable collection remains Open Access.

Prometheus is published by Pluto Journals, an Open Access publisher. This means that everyone has free and unlimited access to the full-text of all articles from our international collection of social science journals. Furthermore Pluto Journals authors don’t pay article processing charges (APCs).

scite_

Smart Citations

Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting

View Citations

See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

Header Abstract Content Author and article information NOTES AND REFERENCES Comments

Prometheus

Volume 14, Issue 1

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

TELEVISION FUTURES IN AUSTRALIA

Published

research-article

Author(s): Tom O'Regan

Publication date (Print): June 1996

Journal: Prometheus

Publisher: Pluto Journals

Bookmark

Abstract

Content

Author and article information

Journal

Journal ID (publisher-id): cpro20

Journal ID (archive): CPRO

Title: Prometheus

Subtitle: Critical Studies in Innovation

Publisher: Pluto Journals

ISSN (Print): 0810-9028

ISSN (Electronic): 1470-1030

Publication date (Print): June 1996

Volume: 14

Issue: 1

Pages: 66-79

Affiliations

Article

Publisher ID: 8632017 Coden ID: Prometheus, Vol. 14, No. 1, 1996: pp. 66–79

DOI: 10.1080/08109029608632017

SO-VID: 00c17514-e7aa-4c91-8e84-a56cc6574cc7

License:

All content is freely available without charge to users or their institutions. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles in this journal without asking prior permission of the publisher or the author. Articles published in the journal are distributed under a http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

History

Page count

Figures: 0, Tables: 0, References: 30, Pages: 14

NOTES AND REFERENCES

David Court. . 1994. . Booting up the information economy. . EBR: The Content Letter . , Vol. 4:: 1
Stuart Cunningham. . 1992. . Framing Culture . , St. Leonards : : Allen & Unwin. .
Jeff Malpas and Gary Wickham. . 1995. . Governance and failure: on the limits of sociology. . Australian and New Zealand Journal of Sociology . , Vol. 31((3)): 37––50. .
James Carey and John Quirk. . 1989. . “The mythos of the electronic revolution. ”. In Communication as Culture . , Edited by: James Carey. . p. 113––141. . Boston : : Unwin Hyman. .
Carolyn Marvin, When Old Technologies Were New, Oxford University Press, 1988.
op. cit., pp. 1, 2, 4.
Quoted by Daniel Czitrom, Media and the American Mind, University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, 1982, p.77.
Court, op. cit., p.1.
Russell Neuman W.. 1991. . The Future of the Mass Audience . , p. 172 New York : : Cambridge University Press. .
George Landow. . 1992. . Hypertext: The Convergence of Contemporary Critical Theory and Technology . , Baltimore : : Johns Hopkins University Press. .
See James Carey, ‘Harold Adams Innis and Marshall McLuhan’, in N. Rosenthal et al., McLuhan: Pro and Con, Pelican, Baltimore, 1972, pp.270–308; Ian Angus and Brian Shoesmith, Dependency/Space/Policy. Continuum, 7 (1), Centre for Research in Culture and Communications, Perth, 1993.
Ian Hayne, ‘New technologies and broadcasting policies’, Communications Research Forum, Bureau of Transport and Communications Economics, Sydney, October 1995, p.21.
ibid, p.13.
ibid, p.25.
Federation of Australian Commercial Television Stations (FACTS), Facts of Australian Content in Television Programme Schedules, FACTS, Sydney, 1970.
Jo Hawke, ‘Privatising the public interest: the public and the Broadcasting Services Act 1992’, in J. Craik, J. James Bailey and A. Moran (eds), Public Voices: Private Interests. Australia's Media Policy, Allen & Unwin, St. Leonards, 1995, p.40.
Tim Dwyer, ‘Pay TV policies: Are Audiences the “users” who will pay?’, in Craik, James Bailey and Moran (eds), op.cit., pp.102.
Toby Miller, ‘Striving for difference: Commercial radio policy’, in Craik, James Bailey and Moran (eds), op.cit., p. 100.
Barbara Herrnstein Smith, Contingencies of Value: Alternative Perspectives for Critical Theory, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1988, p.112.
Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (ABT), Oz Content An Inquiry into Australian Content on Australian Television, Vol.1, ABT, Sydney, 1991.
Ian Hunter, Rethinking the School, Allen & Unwin, Sydney, 1992, p.46.
Tom O'Regan, Australian Television Culture, Allen & Unwin, St. Leonards, 1993, pp.10–13.
ibid, pp. 87–91.
ibid, pp.57–79.
Colin Hoskins and Rolf Minis, ‘Reasons for the US dominance of the international trade in television programmes’, Media, Culture and Society, 10(4), 1988, pp.499–515.
Hoskins and Minis argued that because the US had the least imported programming proportionally producers outside the US faced in the US market the highest cultural discount. This seemed to suggest that the US erected cultural barriers to the circulation of overseas programming where they needed to account for the economic incentives to indigenize — sometimes at significantly greater expense than to use cheaper English language imports.
Television Business International, World Guide, TBI, 1990, p.508.
FACTS, op.cit., p.10.
Steven S. Wildman and Stephen E. Siwek, International Trade in Films and Television Programs, Ballinger Publishing, Cambridge, Mass., 1988, p.37.
op.cit, p.8.

Comments

Comment on this article

[1] David Court. . 1994. . Booting up the information economy. . EBR: The Content Letter . , Vol. 4:: 1

[2] Stuart Cunningham. . 1992. . Framing Culture . , St. Leonards : : Allen & Unwin. .

[3] Jeff Malpas and Gary Wickham. . 1995. . Governance and failure: on the limits of sociology. . Australian and New Zealand Journal of Sociology . , Vol. 31((3)): 37––50. .

[4] James Carey and John Quirk. . 1989. . “The mythos of the electronic revolution. ”. In Communication as Culture . , Edited by: James Carey. . p. 113––141. . Boston : : Unwin Hyman. .

[5] Carolyn Marvin, When Old Technologies Were New, Oxford University Press, 1988.

[6] op. cit., pp. 1, 2, 4.

[7] Quoted by Daniel Czitrom, Media and the American Mind, University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, 1982, p.77.

[8] Court, op. cit., p.1.

[9] Russell Neuman W.. 1991. . The Future of the Mass Audience . , p. 172 New York : : Cambridge University Press. .

[10] George Landow. . 1992. . Hypertext: The Convergence of Contemporary Critical Theory and Technology . , Baltimore : : Johns Hopkins University Press. .

[11] See James Carey, ‘Harold Adams Innis and Marshall McLuhan’, in N. Rosenthal et al., McLuhan: Pro and Con, Pelican, Baltimore, 1972, pp.270–308; Ian Angus and Brian Shoesmith, Dependency/Space/Policy. Continuum, 7 (1), Centre for Research in Culture and Communications, Perth, 1993.

[12] Ian Hayne, ‘New technologies and broadcasting policies’, Communications Research Forum, Bureau of Transport and Communications Economics, Sydney, October 1995, p.21.

[13] ibid, p.13.

[14] ibid, p.25.

[15] Federation of Australian Commercial Television Stations (FACTS), Facts of Australian Content in Television Programme Schedules, FACTS, Sydney, 1970.

[16] Jo Hawke, ‘Privatising the public interest: the public and the Broadcasting Services Act 1992’, in J. Craik, J. James Bailey and A. Moran (eds), Public Voices: Private Interests. Australia's Media Policy, Allen & Unwin, St. Leonards, 1995, p.40.

[17] Tim Dwyer, ‘Pay TV policies: Are Audiences the “users” who will pay?’, in Craik, James Bailey and Moran (eds), op.cit., pp.102.

[18] Toby Miller, ‘Striving for difference: Commercial radio policy’, in Craik, James Bailey and Moran (eds), op.cit., p. 100.

[19] Barbara Herrnstein Smith, Contingencies of Value: Alternative Perspectives for Critical Theory, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1988, p.112.

[20] Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (ABT), Oz Content An Inquiry into Australian Content on Australian Television, Vol.1, ABT, Sydney, 1991.

[21] Ian Hunter, Rethinking the School, Allen & Unwin, Sydney, 1992, p.46.

[22] Tom O'Regan, Australian Television Culture, Allen & Unwin, St. Leonards, 1993, pp.10–13.

[23] ibid, pp. 87–91.

[24] ibid, pp.57–79.

[25] Colin Hoskins and Rolf Minis, ‘Reasons for the US dominance of the international trade in television programmes’, Media, Culture and Society, 10(4), 1988, pp.499–515.

[26] Hoskins and Minis argued that because the US had the least imported programming proportionally producers outside the US faced in the US market the highest cultural discount. This seemed to suggest that the US erected cultural barriers to the circulation of overseas programming where they needed to account for the economic incentives to indigenize — sometimes at significantly greater expense than to use cheaper English language imports.

[27] Television Business International, World Guide, TBI, 1990, p.508.

[28] FACTS, op.cit., p.10.

[29] Steven S. Wildman and Stephen E. Siwek, International Trade in Films and Television Programs, Ballinger Publishing, Cambridge, Mass., 1988, p.37.

[30] op.cit, p.8.

Prometheus

TELEVISION FUTURES IN AUSTRALIA

Journal

Affiliations

Article

History

Page count

Categories

Comment on this article