Navegando por Assunto "Social participation"

Agora exibindo 1 - 1 de 1

Acesso aberto (Open Access)
Participação social e radiofusão pública no Pará: um estudo de caso do Conselho curador da FUNTELPA nos anos de 2009 e 2010
(Universidade Federal do Pará, 2021-11-17) LEITE, Fabrício Rocha de Souza; STEINBRENNER, Rosane Maria Albino; http://lattes.cnpq.br/1508467019000744; https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4321-7245
Public broadcasting in Brazil began as a state expression. Public system communication vehicles were directly linked to government agencies to publicize their agendas to the population. In Pará, it was no different and the Fundação Paraense de Radiodifusão – FUNTELPA, which today encompasses TV Cultura, Rádio Cultura and Portal Cultura from Pará, was created in 1977 for broadcasting services in the state. With the creation of Empresa Brasileira de Comunicação – EBC in 2007 and two years later with the first National Conference on Communication, public broadcasting (PIERANTI, 2018; PAULINO, 2013; ZUCULOTO, 2010; KOPS, 2011) gains a prominence never seen before. Pará followed this national movement and created in 2007 the Secretariat of Communication – SECOM and in the following year reformulated FUNTELPA, creating a collegiate structure based on social councils. We start from dialogues between habermasian public sphere with public communication (GIL; MATOS E NOBRE, 2013; BRANDÃO, 2012; DUARTE, 2007; KUÇOUSKI, 2013; ATKINSON, 1997; DETONI, 2016; BANDA, 2009) and contributions of democratic theories (HABERMAS, 1984, 1995; MOUFFE, 2005; LACLAU; MOUFFE, 1987; COUTINHO, 2006; CARPENTIER, 2011; GOHN, 2011; NOGUEIRA, 2015; AVRITZER, 2015; NOBRE, 2004; MIGUEL, 2013) to investigate how the role of the FUNTELPA Board of Trustees as an instance of social participation took place, in light of the principles enshrined in the public broadcasting model in the years 2009-2010? This case study had a qualitative approach, with data collection and evidence gathering through documentary and bibliographical research in dialogue with the methodology of oral history, with in-depth online interviews, via the Zoom app, with representatives from civil society in the Board of Trustees, bringing to light the main constraints on participation, themes, debates, decisions and legacy. According to Gohn (2011), Avritzer (2002, 2009) and Maciel (2010) about the council as a place of democratic intensity, the experience of the FUNTELPA Board of Trustees in the analyzed time, which is shown to be the only period in fact active and formally registered, was an important but limited initiative. In terms of Carpentier (2011), it was a hybrid experience, alternating moments of participation, interaction and access, understanding how the author, that participation is directly linked to the joint decision (co-deciding), access to simple presence and the interaction with socio-communicative relationships, without joint production or collective decision. As a model of mobilization, control and social participation, it could, therefore, have been more in-depth and more open to participation.