The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Rich media, poor democracy: communication politics in dubious times
Abstract
Robert McChesney argues that the media, far from providing a bedrock for freedom and democracy, have become a significant antidemocratic force in the United States and, to varying degrees, worldwide. Rich Media, Poor Democracy addresses the corporate media explosion and the corresponding implosion of public life that characterizes our times. Challenging the assumption that a society drenched in commercial information 'choices' is ipso facto a democratic one, McChesney argues that the major beneficiaries of the so-called Information Age are wealthy investors, advertisers, and a handful of enormous media, computer, and telecommunications corporations.This concentrated corporate control, McChesney maintains, is disastrous for any notion of participatory democracy. Combining unprecedented detail on current events with historical sweep, McChesney chronicles the waves of media mergers and acquisitions in the late 1990s. He reviews the corrupt and secretive enactment of public policies surrounding the Internet, digital television, and public broadcasting. He also addresses the gradual and ominous adaptation of the First Amendment ('freedom of the press') as a means of shielding corporate media power and the wealthy. Rich Media, Poor Democracy exposes several myths about the media-in particular, that the market compels media firms to 'give the people what they want'- that limit the ability of citizens to grasp the real nature and logic of the media system. If we value our democracy, McChesney warns, we must organize politically to restructure the media in order to affirm their connection to democracy.
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
A New Era of Minimal Effects? The Changing Foundations of Political Communication
Bennett, W. L., & Iyengar, S. (2008) · Journal of Communication · doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.00410.x · Cited by 1,558
Political Contestation in Global Production Networks
Levy, D. L. (2008) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2008.34422006 · Cited by 551
Social media and populism: an elective affinity?
Gerbaudo, P. (2018) · Media, Culture & Society · doi:10.1177/0163443718772192 · Cited by 533
Climate of scepticism: US newspaper coverage of the science of climate change
Antilla, L. (2005) · Global Environmental Change · doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2005.08.003 · Cited by 511
Rethinking the fragmentation of the cyberpublic: from consensus to contestation
Dahlberg, L. (2007) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/1461444807081228 · Cited by 366
Metadata
- Venue
- Choice Reviews Online
- Publisher
- American Library Association
- Published
- 2000-09-01
- Volume
- 38
- Issue
- 01
- Pages
- 38-0115-38-0115
- ISSN
- 0009-4978 (ISSN-L)
- 1523-8253
- OpenAlex
- W1583409680
- Cited by
- 1,197
- 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: Rich media, poor democracy: communication politics in dubious times. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5860/choice.38-0115
- The paper
- Rich media, poor democracy: communication politics in dubious times. (2000). Choice Reviews Online. https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.38-0115
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.