Global Communication: Theories, Stakeholders, and Trends / Edition 3

Global Communication: Theories, Stakeholders, and Trends / Edition 3

by Thomas L. McPhail
1.0 1
Pub. Date:
Select a Purchase Option (Older Edition)
  • purchase options
    $13.54 $59.95 Save 77% Current price is $13.54, Original price is $59.95. You Save 77.41451209341118%.
    • Free return shipping at the end of the rental period details
    • Textbook Rentals in 3 Easy Steps  details
    Note: Access code and/or supplemental material are not guaranteed to be included with textbook rental or used textbook.
  • purchase options
    $29.67 $59.95 Save 51% Current price is $29.67, Original price is $59.95. You Save 51%.
    Note: Access code and/or supplemental material are not guaranteed to be included with textbook rental or used textbook.
  • purchase options

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

See All Customer Reviews

Global Communication: Theories, Stakeholders, and Trends 1 out of 5 based on 0 ratings. 1 reviews.
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
I had to read this book as a textbook for a class. To be blunt, the textbook was the most terrible, poorly authored and edited, and unprofessional textbook I have ever been forced to read. To calm my frustrations while reading the textbook, I listed problems with the textbook as I read. Here are a few of them, in no particular order, summarized and with commentary. --Poor grammar/punctuation/run-on sentences: This textbook had a plethora of grammatical and other errors that greatly hindered my comprehension of the material. Every single chapter had numerous errors that made it very hard for me to read the textbook and understand the material. Some examples include: missing periods (and a new sentence had definitely begun--had it not, it would have been a run on The sentence would have looked like this.); "glocalization" instead of globalization and other various typos; improper use of words, such as "forge" on page 207; and various other errors, such as having two words that meant the same thing next to each other, but did not make sense in context--kind of like writing typing like this. It was as if there was no editor, and this was a very rough draft of the book. --An absurd amount of abbreviations: I understand that many organizations to which the book referred had abbreviations to go along with them, but many of them were spelled out only once, and then brought back up again later in the book. Oftentimes they weren't spelled out at all, and left as abbreviations. This made it very hard to understand what was being discussed and hindered my ability to follow easily.  --Lots of material was nonspecific: The book often had vague sentences/paragraphs in it that meant nothing. For instance, "There has been a deficit between the US and EU." A deficit of what, between whom (the government?), and when? Many questions of mine were left unanswered due to this vague writing style. Also in the textbook: "It amplified it." I had no idea to what each "it" referred. --Rambling: all the authors involved in this book rambled without reason. A great deal of content is irrelevant. With that, paragraphs jumped from topic to topic within paragraphs, seemingly without reason. --Repetition: all of the authors repeated themselves numerous times. I understand repeating for emphasis, but the amount the authors repeated themselves was ridiculous and unnecessary.  --Very few citations: Evidence is often uncited in this book, though there are a handful of in-text citations and always a Works Cited at the end of the chapter. I don't understand why some information is specifically cited, but the rest only is referenced on the Works Cited page. Furthermore, authors seldom introduced who a scholar was before referencing them. As a reader, it was very hard for me to find what they were writing to be credible, if I have no idea what the credentials of the person who they referenced are.  --Politically-slanted: Much of the content in this book is politically slanted towards the democratic party. While I am a democrat, I found this inappropriate to be included in a textbook.  --Outdated/inconsistent dates: though this book was updated in 2010, a ridiculous amount of the information in this book is outdated and not chronological. For instance: the USIA was referenced as the public diplomacy department for the US. This has not existed since 1999. There is no reason the USIA should be noted in the textbook as the current department of public diplomacy. Furthermore, dates were often inconsistent in the textbook--one page, for instance, said an event happened in 2003, the next page said it happened in 2004. Also something to note is that nearly all events are related to the end of the Cold War. This is extremely outdated, especially seeing as the book was updated in 2010, nearly twenty years after the Cold War ended. While I understand that the Cold War had many effects on global communications, I feel that global communications has such a quick rate of change, that the Cold War is inappropriate to reference. Statistics are also often from the 1960s in this textbook. This too is inappropriate, seeing as the book was updated in 2010. --Other wrong material: This book was littered with wrong information and words that were not words, such as "twittering," when in actuality the word is "tweeting." I would expect this mistake from a 75 year old, not a Mass Communications textbook, which should be very in tune with terminology like this. --Other irritating habits: This book is full of irritating habits that made the textbook frustrating to read. A few select habits include: listing nearly everything in 3's (I'm sure there were more or fewer than three reasons for some events and concepts); often saying something "can be summarized"; using "basically" often; not explaining why something is "worth noting"; and saying "first," but never going onto "second." Overall, this book was extremely frustrating and tiresome to read. Much of what I learned is outdated, irrelevant, or plainly wrong. Because of this, I had a very hard time with the course and did not enjoy it, in the least. With that, I do NOT recommend this book.