ABSTRACT
The need for scholarly standards is by no means the only conclusion to be drawn from this sad affair. It offers cause for reflection to academics, broadcasters and all who have based intellectual or political castles on the sand of the Glasgow study. Others who might usefully think again include those who have produced schemes for media reform predicated to degree on the Glasgow critique. The Group’s own attitude to reform is by no means clear. The two major volumes contain no obvious prescriptions for change, but Really Bad News, written by four members of the Group, includes a list of ‘minimum demands’ relating broadly to redefinition of the aims of broadcasting, matters of control, access and recruitment. The Glasgow Group professed surprise and sadness at the reaction to their work, quoting Paul Lazarsfeld’s comment that: ‘If there is any one institutional disease to which the media of mass communications seem particularly subject, it is a nervous reaction to criticism.
