{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03414634146341464, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0020905923344947735, 'mean_word_length': 5.298245614035087, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Moscow Prime Time: How the Soviet Union Built the Media Empire that Lost the Cold War (review)

731 To push this chronological point further, at least four of the essays have only tenuous links to the cold war as a global phenomenon (as opposed to a chronological descriptor). Mehos and Moon’s account of the UN’s EPTA as essentially tied to cold war concerns is unconvincing, while the cold war remains in the distant background of Peter Redfield’s insightful essay on Médecins Sans Frontières, Denicke’s essay on Brasilia, and Toby Jones’s stimulating essay on Saudia Arabia’s second-most-important resource, water. Taken as a whole, the book offers an impressive snapshot of the range of work in technology studies (with important contributions from historians, sociologists, and anthropologists) as they seek to understand the ways in which technopolitics shaped the cold war and vice versa. At least three important tensions emerging from these essays deserve further attention: deterritorialization (as discussed in Denicke and Oldenziel) vs. disputes over natural resources (Hecht, Abraham, and Schmid); commerce vs. cold war realpolitik (Abraham and Schmid); and the increased importance of intangible knowledge (Lampland and Mehos/Moon) vs. embodied knowledge (Redfield). This volume is thus immensely valuable not only for its cutting-edge perspectives on the cold war, but for the promising scholarly agendas it establishes.