Media Studies

What do "microbes" have to do with social equity? These microorganisms are integral to our health, that of our natural environment, and even the "health" of the environments we build. The loss, gain, and retention of microorganisms-their flow between humans and the environment-can greatly impact our health. It is well-known that inequalities in access to perinatal care, healthy foods, quality housing, and the natural environment can create and arise from social inequality. Here, we focus on the argument that access to beneficial microorganisms is a facet of public health, and health inequality may be compounded by inequitable microbial exposure. What do "microbes" have to do with social equity? Microscopic organisms-"microbes"-are integral to our health, the natural environment, and even impact the "health" of the environments we have built. Daily, we encounter millions of particles of bacteria, fungi, and viruses, as well as archaea and protozoa, and trillions more live on and in our bodies. The way that humans organize our spatial and social infrastructure affects every aspect of life, via access to perinatal care, food, buildings, the natural environment, other members of our community, water and waste management facilities, and, in all of these ways, to microorganisms. The way microorganisms and our tissues interact is determined by early life development and the maturation of the immune system, our diet and lifestyle, and the quality of our surrounding environment. Much of the health disparity in societies, which can be attributed to a lack of access stemming from social inequity, is manifested as medical conditions, which have some relation to microorganisms or lack thereof.

What do "microbes" have to do with social equity? These microorganisms are integral to our health, that of our natural environment, and even the "health" of the environments we build. The loss, gain, and retention of microorganisms-their flow between humans and the environment-can greatly impact our health. It is well-known that inequalities in access to perinatal care, healthy foods, quality housing, and the natural environment can create and arise from social inequality. Here, we focus on the argument that access to beneficial microorganisms is a facet of public health, and health inequality may be compounded by inequitable microbial exposure. What do "microbes" have to do with social equity? Microscopic organisms-"microbes"-are integral to our health, the natural environment, and even impact the "health" of the environments we have built. Daily, we encounter millions of particles of bacteria, fungi, and viruses, as well as archaea and protozoa, and trillions more live on and in our bodies. The way that humans organize our spatial and social infrastructure affects every aspect of life, via access to perinatal care, food, buildings, the natural environment, other members of our community, water and waste management facilities, and, in all of these ways, to microorganisms. The way microorganisms and our tissues interact is determined by early life development and the maturation of the immune system, our diet and lifestyle, and the quality of our surrounding environment. Much of the health disparity in societies, which can be attributed to a lack of access stemming from social inequity, is manifested as medical conditions, which have some relation to microorganisms or lack thereof.

This article asks "What lessons does commercially produced news teach young people about the meaning of democracy and of citizenship?" Three competing models of democracy are introduced: Neoliberalism; Communitarianism; and Participatory. With these three models as reference points, one week of Primedia's Channel One video news program-the week of the 1999 World Trade Organization (WTO) protests in Seattle, Washington-is analyzed. While the concept of "democracy" is never directly taken up in this programming, it is argued that the stories, advertisements, and formal structure construct a compelling vision of neo-liberalism as the normative standard for democracy in the United States.

The integration of American and European mass communication research models would provide a broader sociocultural framework for formulating communication policy. Emphasizing a functional approach, the American diffusionist model assumes that society is a system of interrelated parts naturally tending toward a state of dynamic equilibrium. The European model, however, postulates a society not in equilibrium but in constant flux owing to conflict among competing interest groups. Consequently, while American research tends to focus on mass media's effect on the individual and general role in the socialization process, European. studies concentrate on the distribution of control over telecommunications. To integrate these two models, a theory must consider both individual actions and socioeconomic forces affected by and affecting the mass media, and must reconcile views of society in conflict and in equilibrium. Possible effects of this fusion for mass communication study and policymaking include (1) new understanding of the mass media's close relationship with the entire social system, (2) expansion of the scope of research to include social as well as psychological implications, and (3) greater consideration of cultural differences in policy decisions. (MM) I

The last broad-based, systematic assessment of news source diversity was published by Sigal 10 years ago. • Culbertson's study of the veiling of news sources is almost as old.^ In the meantime, not only has the theoretical debate become more lively and more sophisticated, but substantial changes have taken place in the poUtical, organizational and commercial environments of the news industry. These changes call for general recalibration, on the order of Sigal's and Culbertson's studies, regarding the nature and extent of diversity of news sources and news channels.

This article asks "What lessons does commercially produced news teach young people about the meaning of democracy and of citizenship?" Three competing models of democracy are introduced: Neoliberalism; Communitarianism; and Participatory. With these three models as reference points, one week of Primedia's Channel One video news program-the week of the 1999 World Trade Organization (WTO) protests in Seattle, Washington-is analyzed. While the concept of "democracy" is never directly taken up in this programming, it is argued that the stories, advertisements, and formal structure construct a compelling vision of neo-liberalism as the normative standard for democracy in the United States.

This study examines the level and nature of parental guidance regarding television exercised by mass media scholars. It also focuses on the relationship of that guidance to beliefs the scholars hold about the effects of television, to characteristics of their scholarship, and to basic demographic information.

This article asks "What lessons does commercially produced news teach young people about the meaning of democracy and of citizenship?" Three competing models of democracy are introduced: Neoliberalism; Communitarianism; and Participatory. With these three models as reference points, one week of Primedia's Channel One video news program-the week of the 1999 World Trade Organization (WTO) protests in Seattle, Washington-is analyzed. While the concept of "democracy" is never directly taken up in this programming, it is argued that the stories, advertisements, and formal structure construct a compelling vision of neo-liberalism as the normative standard for democracy in the United States.