Media Systems Flashcards
originally in 1975, four dimensions for comparative analysis:
originally in 1975, four dimensions for comparative analysis: (1) degree of state control over mass media organization; (2) degree of mass media partisanship; (3) degree of media-political elite integration; and (4) the nature of the legitimating creed of media institutions
, another of the most important components of politi cal parallelism is
, another of the most important components of politi cal parallelism is organizational connections between media and political parties or other kinds of organizations, including trade unions, cooper atives, churches, and the like, which are often linked to political parties.
Another, closely related component of political parallelism is
Another, closely related component of political parallelism is the tendency for media personnel to be active in political life, often serving in party or public offices. This is also much less common today. Somewhat more common is a tendency in some systems for the career paths of journalists and other media personnel to be shaped by their political affiliations, in the sense that they work for media orga nizations whose politics coincide with their own, or get their jobs in part because their media organizations want to balance the representation of different political tendencies, or get the assignments they do because their political affiliations open certain political doors for them.
Political parallelism is
Political parallelism is also often manifested in the partisanship of media audiences, with supporters of different partiesor tendencies buying different newspapers or watching different TV channels
“publicist” role
“publicist” role that once prevailed in political journalism - that is, an orientation toward influencing public opinion.
. Four basic models can be distinguished for the governance of public broadcasting (c.f. Humphreys 1996: 155-8), and in most countries regulatory author ities tend to follow fairly similar patterns:
. Four basic models can be distinguished for the governance of public broadcasting (c.f. Humphreys 1996: 155-8), and in most countries regulatory author ities tend to follow fairly similar patterns:
(1) The government model in which public broadcasting - which in this case approaches state broadcasting - is controlled directly by the government or by the political majority.
COMPARING MEDIA SYSTEMS
(2) The professional model is exemplified above all by the British Broad casting Corporation (BBC), where a strong tradition developed that broadcasting should be largely insulated from political control and run by broadcasting professionals. As we shall see, this model is also characteristicof the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), Irish public broadcasting, some Scandinavian countries, and public broadcasting in the United States.
(3) In the parliamentary or proportional representation model control over public broadcasting is divided among the political parties by proportional representation, as part of what is known in Italy as the lottizzazione or in German-speaking countries as the proporz prin ciple. The classic example here would be Radiotelevisione Italiana (RAI) in the 1980s, where not only was the board of directors appointed by proportional representation, but the three channels were also divided among the parties: RAI 1 under the control of the Christian Democrats, RAI 2 under the control of the “secular” parties, and RAI 3 under the control of the Communist Party. Lower-level appointments within RAI also largely followed the prin ciple of proportional representation. The parliamentary model is only really distinct from the government model in systems where coalition government and power sharing are typical - a distinc tion that will be explained further in the following text. In a ma joritarian political system, even if public broadcasting is formally under the authority of parliament and not directly supervised by the government, appointment of the governing board by propor tional representation results in control by the political majority, as in Spain.2
(4) The “civic” or “corporatist’’ model is similar to the parliamentary model in the sense that control of public service broadcasting is dis tributed among various social and political groups, but differs in that representation is extended beyond political parties to other kinds of “socially relevant groups” - trade unions, business associations, re ligious organizations, ethnic associations, and the like. The Dutch “pillarized” system, in which broadcasting was run directly by as sociations rooted in diverse religious and ideological subgroups, is the purest example of such a system. This model can also be seen in certain forms of community radio in Europe and in German broadcasting councils, which represent “socially relevant groups” along with political parties.
We will focus primarily on three fairly closely related dimensions of professionalization.
(1) Autonomy. Autonomy has always been a central part of the defini
tion of professionalism. This is one of the key reasons why many occupations try to “professionalize” themselves, to justify greater control over their work process. The classic case is medicine: even if bureaucratization has limited the autonomy doctors enjoyed in the era when virtually all (at least in the classic U.S. and British cases) were “free” professionals,
(2) Distinct professional norms. Professions, as Collins (1990) puts it, “are occupations which organize themselves ‘horizontally,’ with a certain style of life, code of ethics, and self-conscious identity and barriers to outsiders.” An important part of this “horizontal” or ganization is the existence of a set of shared norms distinct to the profession. In the case of journalism these norms can include ethical principles such as the obligation to protect confidential sources or to maintain a separation between advertising and editorial content, as well as practical routines - common standards of “newsworthiness,”
(3) Public service orientation. Another important element of the con cept of “professionalism” is the notion that professions are oriented toward an ethic of public service. This has been a particularly con troversial point in the sociology of the professions. Parsons (1939) stressed the public service orientation of professionalism as part of a critique of the Marxist idea that the development of capitalism dis places all motivations other than those of “cold calculation
INSTRUMENTALIZATION. s.
INSTRUMENTALIZATION. We will often draw a contrast in the pages that follow between professionalization and instrumentalization of the media. What we mean by instrumentalization is control of the media by outside actors-parties, politicians, social groups or movements, or economic ac tors seeking political influence - who use them to intervene in the world of politics.
We will use the term instrumentalization in the pages that follow to refer specifically
We will use the term instrumentalization in the pages that follow to refer specifically to political instrumentalization. It should be noted that media can also be “instrumentalized” for commercial purposes: advertising is essentially this, and media organizations are often sub ject to broader forms of commercial instrumentalization, ranging from more blatant examples such as product placement in film and television programming and demands from advertisers for influence over edito rial content, to more subtle kinds of pressures.
Other forms of state intervention include:
*
Other forms of state intervention include:
* Libel, defamation, privacy, and right-of-reply laws;
* Hate speech laws;
* Professional secrecylaws for journalists (protecting the confidential ity of sources) and “conscience laws” (protecting journalists when the political line of their paper changes);
* Laws regulating access to government information;
* Laws regulating media concentration, ownership, and competition;
* Laws regulating political communication, particularly during elec tion campaigns; and
* Broadcast licensing laws and laws regulating broadcasting con tent, including those dealing with political pluralism, language, and domestic content.
The Mediterranean or Polarized Pluralist Model
The Mediterranean or Polarized Pluralist Model is characterized by an elite-oriented press with relatively small circulation and a correspond ing centrality of electronic media. Political parallelism tends to be high; the press is marked by a strong focus on political life, external pluralism, and a tradition of commentary-oriented or advocacy journalism persists more strongly than in other parts of Europe
The North/Central European or Democratic Corporatist Model is
is characterized by early development of press freedom and the newspaper industry, and very high newspaper circulation. It is also characterized by a history of strong party newspapers, and other media connected to or ganized social groups. Thi Political parallelism is historically high and, though it is diminish ing, a moderate degree of external pluralism and a legacy of commentary oriented journalism persists, mixed with a growing emphasis on neutral professionalism and information-oriented journalism.
The North Atlantic or Liberal Model,
The North Atlantic or Liberal Model, similar to the Democratic Cor poratist Model, is characterized by early development of press freedom and the mass-circulation press, though newspaper circulation today is lower than in the Democratic Corporatist societies. Commercial news papers dominate, political parallelism is low, and internal pluralism pre dominates - with the important exception of the highly partisan British press. Professionalization of journalism is relatively strong, though with out the kind of formal organization that prevails in the Democratic Cor poratist countries.
