English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Each and every time a new contribution devoted to the communication writings of Harold Innis emerges, it faces a central question: is it telling us something new? More to the point, is it telling us something of the “hidden Innis”? It is a truism in the literature that Innis, a political economist at the University of Toronto from 1920 to 1952, was an awful writer. It is also a truism, however, that Innis’ writings on media and communication technology contain more than they apparently let on. In Empire and Communications (1950) and The Bias of Communication (1951), Innis forwarded three important propositions about media: that their material properties engender a bias in cultures either toward the dimension of space or toward time; that communication technologies, over time, will lock communicants into one bias or another, a state that Innis referred to as the Monopoly of Knowledge; and that cultures, through default or design, can thwart the debilitating effects of media by actively constructing knowledge and continually querying formulations already in circulation, an ethic Innis referred to as the Oral Tradition (Innis, 1950, 1951). These theories, in their turn, have provoked both admiration and upset. Critics have faulted Innis, particularly in his formulations on media, with forwarding simplistic notions that do violence to history. Defenders, in response, have set for themselves the task of refuting that charge. Their work has been guided by the premise that if Innis was capable of discerning new and important

We are Still Looking: Alexander Watson, Marginal Man, and the Continuing Search for the Hidden Innis