Theories of Media and Communication - Research Paper Example

Media and Communication theory Introduction: The natives of the Western societies in recent times have become an important part of the information age or an information society. Individuals are constantly exposed to new resources of information and new media that transmit and allocate information. The world is observing the formation of an information society. There has been a faith in the significance of information, which is infiltrating all regions of society, and in our daily life1. According to a seminar conducted by the Danish Research Council for the Humanities in 1999, the media studies were not formed until the end of 60s. A close look at the publications of media research will reveal that the empirical results are more highlighted. These results were based on the form of evaluations of media products, of viewers or of economic-political-institutional features. The highlighted aspects also include introductions and explanations of global theories. Today, with the help of media research and combined approach, a question can be raised that whether adequate space and time should not be provided for the expressions of media theory2. Subsequently, we will be discussing the issue whether media controls the people or the people influence the media. Aims of the study: This study aims to introduce you to the liberal perspective on the media through different comparative approaches. It examines the strengths and weaknesses of each typology and discusses the criteria used by these typologies to differentiate types of public communications systems. The typologies present within the media structure: According to the hypotheses of media and communication, the definition of “media and communication” has been deliberately framed. However, this does not always imply that the concept is exclusive. The idea is that this perception will always be combined with the other perceptions. For instance, the media and communication can be combined with the notions of text, society, or modernity. However, this also implies that the disciplines and the institutions to which these notions are linked are not provided within the theory. The media and communication theories can be found in several academic disciplines and in various research institutions. Therefore, they are not limited. For example, “media studies” is not a topic, which is only found in “Department of Media Studies”. Thus, no theory is associated to any specific theories or disciplines or contextualized3. Several typologies have come up over the years. However, the most well known typology offered is by the authors of Four Theories of Press. The four models, which were offered by them, include authoritarian, libertarian, Soviet communist and social responsibility. This study presented by the authors of Four Theories of Press is a milestone in the history of communication studies4-5. During 70s, Lowenstein and Merill had replaced the “Soviet Communist” by central socialist”. They wanted to include the countries of the Eastern Bloc. They also substituted “social responsibility” by “social- libertarian”. Besides these, the other two, that is, authoritarian and libertarian were kept unchanged. Merill and Lowenstein had added a fifth model known as “utopian”. This addition was made in order to justify that the subsisting press systems were not up to the mark. Eventually, Merill had developed his own model. He converged anarchy and totalitarianism and incorporated four categories in his model. Those include democratic capitalism, democratic socialism, authoritarianism, and libertarianism6. In the next decade, Hatchen went far to replace libertarian with “Western”. He did not make any changes to authoritarianism and communism. In fact, he made contribution by making addition of two new models, which are referred as “Revolutionary” and “developmental”. He made this addition in order to exhibit the transitions of the developing economies. The former model was incorporated so as to reveal the emergence of press systems, which put an end to the regimes. During the German occupation, the role of French secret press was worth remembering. The tracts of rebels in the media of Soviet Union also marked revolutions in the field of nationalism and brought an end to former colonialism. The latter model has been included to reflect the administrative systems of the developing economies. These economies made an attempt to make use of the communication power so as to build strong nations. During the period of 80s, it has been observed that Picard had endeavored to divide the world into two segments. One is the Western zone and the other is the developing nation. These two segments had four to five divisions. Picard wanted to add a Scandinavian model in the management of public domain. That is why, he added “democratic socialist” category to the ideas of libertarian and social responsibility. The zone of developing nations was divided into the categories of communism, authoritarianism, revolutionary and developmental concepts7. If Europe is taken into consideration, then it can be viewed that there were only limited number of typologies in the history of media systems. Contrasting concepts have been found such as, “free-market liberal” and “collectivist-statist” by Curran or “communist totalitarian” and “bourgeois democracy” by Spark. During 1960s, Williams introduced between authoritarian, paternal commercial and democratic communications structures. McQuail, on the other hand, made contributions by only adding two concepts of “developing media” and “democratic-participant” to the contributions made by the authors of Four Theories of Press8-9. Revision has made by Nordenstreng to the typology proposed by McQuail. The intention of the revision was to bring forth the normative theories of the press and integrate with the modern trends such as globalization and the materialization of the new media. However, the author has certain constraints. The author limited himself to only democratic administrations. Nordenstreng made alterations by differentiating the perspectives that overlap within the same media structure. These standpoints are liberal-individualist, administrative, critical, social responsibility, and cultural negotiation. Recently, Curran and Park have made a proposal on categorization. This integrates economic and political principles. The types incorporate “authoritarian regulated societies”, “democratic regulated societies”, “transitional and mixed societies”, “authoritarian neo-liberal societies”, and “democratic neo-liberal societies”10. Now, the question can be raised with regard to why these typologies have come up. What is the need of these typologies? Do they make up a naive effort to understand an increasingly multifaceted reality? The answers lie in the way the typologies are set up and formulated. There can be three aspects to determine the typologies of the communication system. In case of differentiating the types of communication typology, “internal coherence” of a model is determined by the measures. These measures have to be restricted in number, unambiguous and have to be applied in a methodical fashion. This strong base in theory makes the task of several analysts difficult for assessing many models. By typology we mean, a set of approaches. The systems of communication can be comprised into sub-genres and can be estimated into the categories. The advocates of the approach of “continuum” always make sure to avoid the loopholes present within the types and try to incorporate those with the main categories. The authors of Four Theories of Press chose the option of communication system where the cases are incorporated into one particular type. On the other hand, Hatchen, Curran, and Park chose the option of approximation of the categories. At the end, the objectives of comparison resolve the degree of empiricism of a typology. These models contradict the actual organizations. With the advent of the complex modern communication systems, the drift has been towards the systems to patterns11. Jean K. Chalaby in his article “French Political Communication in a Comparative Perspective: The Media and the Issue of Freedom” highlighted the political aspect of the communication systems. He made the comparison between two sequences of criteria. The first criterion takes into consideration the balance of authority between the civil society and the state and between the administrative structure and electorate. It also provides importance to visibility and responsibility of the political leaders. The three pointers of the media system include the extent of freedom of expression, media liberty and media pluralism. The strategy of “tentpoles” has been followed in this model, which has the identification traits. Thus, diverse set of regimes can be located in this model. In regard to the degree of empiricism, a contradiction between the ideology and the mindset of the elites has been noticed. However, there has been diversification in the political sphere of the majority of the media systems12. It has been debated that the structure can be arranged in a hierarchical order with respect to the set of criteria for this typology. Therefore, it has been found that quite a few state-run political communication systems are more liberal and democratic than the others13. Four Perfect Types: 1. The impact of Totalitarianism on media: During 20th century, Raymond Aron had observed five features of totalitarianism. An individual party retains its monopoly power over the political activities. This party is guided by an ideology, which talks about the complete control over the state. The exercise of the monopoly power is in terms of aggression and persuasion. Hence, all media systems are controlled by the state. The majorities of the economic and professional activities come under the control of the state and comprise of the bureaucrat ideology. Any kind of mistake committed by an individual has been taken for granted as the political blunder on the grounds of official ideology. The outcome brings about ideological and physical panic. These kinds of administration are driven by radical elites. The role that the media plays in this kind of systems is guided by the thoughts and the beliefs of the revolutionary elites. The elites of this totalitarianism system have the traits of Machiavellianism, pessimism, and aggression. By Machiavellianism, we may refer to the pessimistic attitude towards humanity. This kind of misanthropic outlook drives them to a brutal immorality and exceptional determination for gaining authority. This kind of political attitude makes them organize certain techniques, which will ultimately lead to devastation of parliamentary democracy14. Under these kinds of situations, the individual liberty is wiped out. Even the freedom of thought and expression fades out. The media organizations and their personnel become the mere puppets in the hands of the political elites of totalitarian system. Thus, they become an element of the ideological state affairs, which prefers imaginative activities and film production, the educational structure, science and belief. The monopoly serves as two broad functions in the context of communication system. The first objective is authoritarian in nature. The rebel of the opposition party is suppressive in nature in this system. The second objective is to facilitate the alteration of the media into apparatus of propaganda framed to instruct the masses. This kind of system has evolved during the 20th century. The examples of this system include the dominance of Nazi Party in Germany and of Stalin in Soviet Union. Japan had undergone sufferings of the totalitarian rule during pre and post World War II15. Similarly, China also had encountered traumas during the Cultural Revolution16. 2. The impact of Authoritarianism on media: One of the major differences between authoritarianism and totalitarianism is that authoritarianism does not have the revolutionary trait. The rule of the authoritarians is often determined by conservatism. They are much more mechanized in their self-preservation. They are very concerned about protecting the political and financial interests of the group of associates who are the backbone of the leader. No particular arrangement in constitutions can be found in case of authoritarian system. It can vary from monarchies to presidential form of system to quasi- single party system. Some of the authoritarian administrative systems put an effort to cover-up as democracies and systematize pseudo-elections. The longevity of these kinds of systems depends upon the rule of the elite and his ability to forward the authority to his chosen successor17-18. The structure of media that is found in authoritarian system is framed according to the communication requirements of the administration. The authoritarian government is a kind of administration that cannot be totally validated. Hence, the governments always find themselves in a state of continuous legitimate crisis. To keep this crisis in a dormant stage, the government tries to gain authority over the public domain and adopts an oppressive attitude towards media. The longevity of authoritarian system is no longer compared to totalitarian system due to their use of aggressive outlook. By means of state monopoly, these systems dominate the broadcasting media. The associates of the regime usually manage the broadcasting companies. They may also be under the control of the publicly owned rich corporations. The public financing of the broadcasting media restricts the sovereignty of the consumers19. The authorized newspapers often dominate the press although it may enjoy more liberty. Even if the broadcasting media is permitted to have their own liberty, the opposition newspaper organizations are suppressed with stringent censorship rules. These rules put a ban on criticizing the army and the administration. Thus, it forbids any significant debate regarding the “state security”. There has been widespread censorship and has been exercised by means of executive processes, taxation, subsidies, threats and aggression. As the judicial system is not autonomous, the people from the media brought before the courts did not have any chance of having fair trials. Even if journalists have been allowed to write anything they want to, there is an atmosphere of self-censorship. Owing to censorship, there is lack of criticism. However, the government needs the support of the public opinion for maintaining a crooked administration. The public support is impossible in this context, thus the government is able to live up the expectations of a handful of individuals20. As the official press and flattering journalists praise the government, the millions of illiterate public are informed of the good news of the economy. They are informed through state broadcaster’s news reports21. We find contrasting ways of treating public in case of authoritarian and totalitarian system. The totalitarian form of government thinks of changing the mindset of the public by setting up a new form of system. On the other hand, in the authoritarian form of government, the elites are guided by greed. They are not concerned about ideology and go on maintaining status quo. Thus, they are not bothered about the public as long as they do not raise their voices. Therefore, one can conclude that the steps undertaken by the authoritarian form of government are not as radical as totalitarian form of government. In case of authoritarian systems, the media systems are more open to the foreign media channels. It can substitute persistent misinformation with escapism and activity. There has been no divergence of media reporting in case of authoritarian form of government. However, this kind of administration functions even without a proper public support. The elites of this system do not have any kind of threat or fear from the public. The elites only lose their authority when they are overpowered by the insiders who might have conspired against them22. 3. The impact of Statism on media: The statist strategies incorporate intervention in daily economic life, central planning to some extent, inner-looking industrialization, command over the market instruments and extensive state possession. This kind of strategies can accepted when there is a need of strengthening of the power of the state, legitimacy, and infrastructures. The economic system of the market is said to be weak and the government does not want to go for a liberalization program. This can be due to several reasons, such as, well-built social tradition, the occurrence of the strong communist parties. The elites of statist society can think that they would lose their authority in a liberalized economy23. The statism implies the form of government that involves a range of typical policies. It is common in those countries, which have gone through the transition phase of authoritarian system to democratic rule. These nations generally accept a presidential rule. The powers are vested in the hands of the President in this political system24. In this kind of system, the state continues to be the main player in the public domain. It has strong influence over the public communication system. The state has the monopoly power over the broadcasting media. The influential state broadcaster can also control the broadcasting. Even though, liberty is provided to the press, it is subjected to stringent regulation. During the times of emergency, the government will not think twice before intervening into the press. The role of television is also very significant. It has been used for the objective of nation building. Television is considered to be a nationalized institution and the channels are viewed with certain regard. It has been considered to be a symbol of self-government. National identity, news, and the reality programs are brought to the front by the help of the television. History, authorized ceremonies and accomplishments in science, sport and international relations are put up so as to help the nations to celebrate together and get them under one flag. Another characteristic trait of statism is that even though the government will be the dominating factor in the field of media and press, the opposition parties also can have limited right of entry into broadcasting. It is generally observed that the political elites of the opposition parties pay off for their poor access to television. They have to make close associations with important and powerful newspapers. Being the supreme authority of the state the President can claim a complimentary political coverage from the state broadcaster. The consequence of this coverage is subjective reporting, lack of proper evaluation from the journalists and a sequence of arguments among the members of the executive body, public, and the media. The state television assures that they can gather information from the electorate by establishing strong connections, which the journalists and the party officials are unable to fulfill. The post Soviet Russia is a perfect example of statism. Nowadays, The President of Russia had made use of the Beslan catastrophe to strengthen his authority. The press and the media have no say against the President. The Parliament is also altered into an authorized body, which gives consent to whatever the President is doing. In addition, the regional powers are also limited. In recent times, it has been observed that Russia is going back to the authoritarian form of government. The intense effect of statism on the media and broadcasting can be felt in France25. 4. The impact of Liberalism on media: There has been continued existence of the free press systems in the liberalistic form of government. This aspect is observed in the United States of America and Britain. In both these nations, there has been a set of laws, which protects the freedom of expression. The press and the media are independent of the excessive political intervention. The political leaders are habituated with the interference of the media and the press. These elites also expect the criticism and public review for the sake of their management decisions. News management systems have been developed by the elites, as they do not have that much control over the media. The liberal communication system is rooted in legal values. The power is distributed in a balanced manner between the politics and the media. During the 19th century, there has been emergence of the liberal press systems in United States and Britain. This happened due to the moderate laws and the free market mechanisms. Eventually, the circulation of newspaper increased due to sales and advertising. Advertising has been a crucial feature in the political communication system (Mc Nair, 36). The newspaper industry became self-sufficient with the increase in their earnings. Thus, they became independent of the political exploitation and corruption. The improvement in the relationship between the readers and the newspapers led to the de-politicization of its substance26-27. The news are not only confined to the political stream, but also included the non-political news and the editorial sections. The end of 19th century saw the progressive media system in U.S. and Great Britain, which is independent in nature. This system has its own set of norms, rules, values, and institutions. The politicians and the journalists gradually became interdependent. The journalists gather the news from the politicians. Similarly, the politicians publicized their own views by means of media. There can be both the convergence as well as divergence of interests between the journalists and the politicians. The political elites may use the media to converse with other leaders. On the other hand, the journalists can also be blamed for their misreporting and bias. There have been occasional complaints from the politicians’ side about the media coverage28. Thus, it can be said that in a liberalized system, the openness of the press and the media in a politically democratic system cannot be found in any other form of government. However, the political elites are less responsible to the public and the media in any other form of government29. The media and the communication system in France: We find the effect of statism on the political communication system in the contemporary France. During the political doctrine of the Gaullist administration, statism was the core element prevailing in the French economy. At the time of de Gaulle’s presidential tenure, the broadcasting media was not provided any kind of liberalization. When he came into power, he introduced a reform in 1959 that state will have the monopoly power over the broadcasting media system30. During the Gaulle’s rule, adequate authority has been provided to the state so as to maintain control over the broadcasting media. The state dominated the life of every citizen in France31. Gaulle also wanted to keep the broadcasting media away from the private sector and the market mechanisms. Thus, the media and the press systems could not flourish in that time in France. In order to reinstate the authority of the state, Gaulle wanted to exploit the mass communication system. The broadcasting media was used to have control over the television so as to strengthen the state control in contemporary France32. Gaulle also desired to exploit the broadcasting media to strengthen social structure in France. He made an attempt to appoint the people in their own country and for this, television played a significant role. He wanted the journalists to show the positive aspect of life of the nation and to display the traditional viewpoints of the France. He preferred to watch the orthodox views in the historic or documentary programs33. De Gaulle and his adherents wanted to use the television industry to prove state being a national institution and represent France around the globe34. After the end of De Gaulle’s rule in France, liberalizing steps have been initiated in order to abolish the monopolistic power of the state over the broadcasting media. The steps also include the privatization of the state assets. Now, the France has remained to be in the top position in the field of media and communication. The press in France still has the monopoly over the newspaper industry. As a result, the newspaper industry finds it difficult to generate enough income from the sales of the newspapers and thus, is reliant on the state relief. This kind of environment prevents the newspaper entrepreneurs from taking up risks in the field of media. It also hampers innovative ideas of the media industry35. Hence, it can be noticed that there has been transition from statism to state capitalism in France. There have been limitations of the market forces regarding the control of the media in France. The ruling class basically dominates the media system. Although France has a democratic form of government, it is not considered to be a perfect example of democracy. Even if, the journalists are aware of the corruption, they are not allowed to speak up in front of the nation. The public is kept in the dark and the political elites remain irresponsible towards any kind of corruptions36. Conclusion: It can be seen that the democratic and the capitalistic system are bound by some limitations. The media and the press may be nominally independent in the democratic systems. However, the concentration of possession and the profit-making motive lures the newspapers and thereby, they get dominated by the ruling class. The democratic form of government appears to be much more liberated than the non-democratic systems37. There can be significant influence of the corporations in the democratic media systems. However, it becomes a challenge for the regulatory authorities to control the rise for the corporate power and make the market mechanisms work for the public. Therefore, it can be concluded that all the political communication systems are not the same. Some of the public domains are open and liberated and some of the political elites are responsible to the public38. Over the years, the official reports of the media highlight several shortcomings and engage in the same ritual reactions. They go on polishing over the issues and the recommendations provided by them failed to sort out and solve the problems. The good strategies taken by the government need not be consistent. Rather, these policies are the aspects of the government’s association with the media39. References: 1. Baker, C. Edwin. Media, markets, and democracy. Communication, society, and politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. 2. Brugger, Neils. “Theories of Media and Communication: Histories and Relevance”. Papers on Media and Communication Theories, 2003. Available at: http://www.medieteori.dk/publikationer/001_bruegger.pdf (Accessed on Oct. 12, 2009). 3. Chalaby, Jean. K. ‘French Political Communication in a Comparative Perspective: The Media and the Issue of Freedom’. Modern & Contemporary France, 13(3): 273-290, 2005. 4. Curran, James, Seaton, Jean. Power without responsibility: the press, broadcasting, and new media in Britain. London: Routledge, 2003. 5. Doyle, Gillian. Understanding media economics. New York: SAGE, 2002. 6. Hallin, Daniel, C, Mancini, Paolo. Comparing media systems: three models of media and politics. Communication, society, and politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. 7. Hill, Steven.G, Stokowski, Patricia.A. Understanding Media Cultures: Social Theory and Mass Communication. Journal of Leisure Research, 1997. 8. Mc Nair, Brian. An introduction to political communication. Communication and society. London: Routledge, 2003. 9. Mc Quail, Denis. Mc Quail’s mass communication theory. New York: SAGE, 2005. 10. Park, Myung-Jin, Curran, James. De-Westernizing media studies. Communication and society. London: Routledge, 2000. 11. Siebert, Fred Seaton, Peterson, Theodore, Schramm, Wilbur. Four theories of the press: the authoritarian, libertarian, social responsibility and Soviet communist concepts of what the press should be and do. Volume 15 of Illini books. Illinois: University of Illinois Press, 1963. 12. Valentinsen, Thomas. A, 2005. “Media and Communications Theory Paper”. Available at: http://www.valentinsen.com/MediaAndCommunicationsTheory.pdf (Accessed on Oct. 12, 2009). Read More