IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/rfa/smcjnl/v1y2013i2p109-118.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

In Press We Trust? A Comparative Study of Three European Press Systems

Author

Listed:
  • Antonio Ciaglia

Abstract

For the vast majority of the citizens in today¡¯s advanced democracies, the media, in particular traditional media, represent the only window that can be opened daily into current public and political debates. In fact, a very small fraction of the population is actually able to experience politics directly. Consequently, it becomes crucial that those means ¨C the media ¨C that are assigned to keep citizens informed about politicians¡¯ management of public affairs obtain a sufficiently higher degree of trust from citizens. By comparing three press systems in the UK, Germany, and Italy, this manuscript aims to expose and explain the types of connections that can be established between the structural features of modern European press systems and the degree of trust in how the press performs. More specifically, particular attention is paid to the links between people¡¯s attitudes and the degree of pluralism achieved within the print media sector in fast evolving media environments.

Suggested Citation

  • Antonio Ciaglia, 2013. "In Press We Trust? A Comparative Study of Three European Press Systems," Studies in Media and Communication, Redfame publishing, vol. 1(2), pages 109-118, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:rfa:smcjnl:v:1:y:2013:i:2:p:109-118
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://redfame.com/journal/index.php/smc/article/view/223/226
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: http://redfame.com/journal/index.php/smc/article/view/223
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:rfa:smcjnl:v:1:y:2013:i:2:p:109-118. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Redfame publishing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cepflch.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.