The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Book Reviews
Abstract
By eroding interpersonal skills, the mass media have undermined community in America, according to Michael Bugeja. The main contribution of his book is to place some familiar concerns about, and fresh examples of, electronic media’s negative influences on self and community within a universal ethical framework and approach to individual development. His approach is influenced by humanistic critiques of technology and by a media ethics derived mainly from Western culture, especially Christianity. Bugeja begins by contending that we should be less concerned about the digital divide than the “interpersonal divide,” which “concerns the social gap that develops when individuals misperceive reality because of media overconsumption and misinterpret others because of technology overuse” (p. ix). This leads to a host of social problems, including diminished relationships at home and work, loss of connection to geographical communities, declining civic engagement, violations of privacy, and hypercommercialization. Bugeja especially indicts television and the Internet for isolating us from face-to-face communication. He starts from the belief that we are social creatures who crave above all acceptance in community. For him, face-to-face interaction in place-based community is the source of individual moral development and social well-being. From the telegraph to the Internet, electronic media have progressively estranged us from talk and place, offering us virtual environments that Bugeja sees as lacking authenticity and reality. Instead of encouraging us to seek fulfillment in community, media marketers substitute material gratification and foster dependence on psychological self-help gurus, dulling our conscience and consciousness. We can no longer distinguish fact and fiction, especially in contemporary journalism. We are left unable to cope with the human challenges experienced at each stage of life and our mortality.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
The End of Framing as we Know it … and the Future of Media Effects
Cacciatore, M. A., Scheufele, D. A., & Iyengar, S. (2016) · Mass Communication and Society · doi:10.1080/15205436.2015.1068811 · Cited by 704
The role of social cognition in decision making
Frith, C. D., & Singer, T. (2008) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.2008.0156 · Cited by 361
Science communication as political communication
Scheufele, D. A. (2014) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1317516111 · Cited by 313
Nisbet, E. C., Hart, P. S., Myers, T., & Ellithorpe, M. (2013) · Journal of Communication · doi:10.1111/jcom.12040 · Cited by 137
Shih, T.-J., & Lin, C.-Y. (2017) · Environmental Communication · doi:10.1080/17524032.2016.1154886 · Cited by 23
Metadata
- Authors
- Raphael, C.
- Venue
- Journal of Communication
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2006-11-09
- Volume
- 56
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 864-866
- ISSN
- 0021-9916 (ISSN-L)
- 1460-2466
- OpenAlex
- W2773720621
- Cited by
- 477
- References
- 0
- Type
- book review
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Book Reviews. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00326.x
- The paper
- Raphael, C. (2006). Book Reviews. Journal of Communication. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00326.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.