大众传播与新闻学杂志

The relationship between the Arab world and the US involves many variables and political, economic and cultural problems. This is because such relation is always based on an active and dominating actor namely the United States, and on a state of imbalance of power. Here, the positions of the second party (the Arab World) are linked to some sort of international variables in the American policy towards Arab states. The image of the United States in the Gulf media is governed by four main factors: First: The relation or link between Gulf political systems and the United States. Second: The nature of the relation between the media and the ruling political system. Third: The stakes lie in the ability of the independent newspapers to provide another (counter) reading to uncover the secrets of the relations between the Gulf media and the American policy. Fourth: To what extent there is a balance in the flow of information between those who have it
and those who do not have it; in the absence of the so called knowledge gap. The study aims at analyzing and interpreting the image of the United States in the print Gulf media. It focuses on Al-Khaleej newspaper of the United Arab Emirates and Al-Sharq Al-Awsat newspaper of Saudi Arabia, published in London. Plus sub other objectives. The main question of this study is to analyze the image of U.S.A in the Gulf Press? Plus others questions. In its analysis of the published material, the study used the qualitative discourse analysis. The studies show that print media propagate the policy of the political regime or what it tries to convey to the public opinion. The image of the United States in the Gulf media is the same image the political regimes try to convey to the public opinion.

Most people will agree that far too much money is spent on advertising the candidacies of those who want to be elected supposedly to serve the public good. Pre-dating the development of television, the great American humorist Will Rogers joked that “politics has become so expensive that it takes a lot of money even to be defeated.” The idea of the corrupting influence of money in politics has long been with us. Limits have been enacted on individual contributions to campaigns, but in recent times these limits have been skirted by donating to the political parties and to independent groups that indirectly support, yet are not directly connected to, a candidate.

This article discusses how the mass media has been able to assist national and regional development. The
concepts of media, ethnicity, and regional development are discussed as critical elements that influence regional development. The discussions focus on how the concept of ethnicity was used by the colonial and independent governments in Kenya to perpetuate conflicts amongst the different ethnic groups through the mass organs of communication. While the colonial regime used ethnicity to consign different ethnic groups to different sectors of the economy, the post independence regimes have refined the use of ethnicity to help sustain their regimes in power and to either support development or frustrate development efforts in specific regions. The article acknowledges the critical role undertaken by the media in rationalizing the politics of ethnicity and how that eventually feeds into national and regional development. Different scholars have reasoned differently on the role of the media in influencing events. The present discussion focuses attention on one of the early argumentations by media scholars. Their argumentation on the role and effect of the mass media is contextualized in the Kenyan media scene and analysed for relevance.

At first glance, the title of this essay seems to be more than just a little bit tautological. Obviously, communication is a social process that needs at least one agent, usually called communicator, who acts with regard to another agent, the recipient. In the Encyclopedia Britannica on the internet communication is described as a social behavior and defined as “the exchange of meanings between individuals through a
common system of symbols”. The word communication is derived from the latin verb communicare which means to share things or to make things common. All of this makes totally clear that communication is a social process. My argument is, indeed, that we all know this, but tend to ignore this fact in our daily routines as researchers and scholars.

Online delivery of public health interventions is on the rise and for good reason. Roughly 2.3 billion people across the globe are online [1] and many are using it as a resource for health-related information [2,3]. This has promoted a shift in many consumers from passive recipients to active participants in managing their own health [4,5]. Practitioners have been quick to recognize the promise of the internet as a vehicle for disseminating health-saving messages [6] and studies assessing online interventions have concluded that they work [7-12]. However, what has not been appropriately assessed is the degree to which online interventions reach and influence vulnerable sub-groups, such as those with mental disorders.