Comparing Media Systems and Political Communications

WK6 – Comparative media
Dr. Carolina Matos
Government Department
University of Essex

Key points
• Comparative political communication research: merits and
challenges
• Importance of comparative political communication research in a
changing world (i.e. Matos, 2012; Esser and Pfetsch, 2004; Hallin
and Mancini, 2000)
• Four Theories of the Press (Siebert, Peterson and Schramm, 1956)
• Comparing Media Systems (Hallin and Mancini, 2000)
• Classic liberal media theory and democratic duties of the media
• Media and democracy in Latin America
• Changes in the media landscape in the UK and US
• Contemporary examples of media regulation debates
• Conclusions
• Seminar questions and activities
• Readings for week 7

Readings for week 6
• Required texts:
• Esser, F. and Pfetsch, B. (2009) “Meeting the Challenges of Global
Communication and Political Integration: the significance of
comparative research in a changing world” in (eds.) Comparing
Political Communication – Theories, Cases and Challenges,
Cambridge: C. University Press
• Matos, C. (2012) “Defining a Framework for Comparative Anaylsis”
in Media and politics in Latin America: globalization, democracy
and identity, London: I.B. Tauris, 16-21
• Siebert, F., Peterson, T., and Schramm, W. (1956) Four Theories of
Press: The Authoritarian, Libertarian, Social Responsibility, and
Soviet Communist Concepts of what Press Should Be and Doing.
Illinois: University of Illinois Press.
• Additional:
• Hallin and Mancini (2000) Comparing Media Systems

Why comparative analysis to look at media
systems? (in Hallin and Mancini, 2000)
• Because most of the literature on the media is highly ethnocentric,
referring to the experience of single countries as if the model that
prevailed were universal
• Direction towards comparative analysis in communications started
in the 1970’s, but field is still in its infancy in comparison for
instance with comparative politics (Landman, 2003)
• Theorists in the communication field include Blumler, McLeod and
Rosengren (1992); Blumler and Gurevitch (1995) and Curran and
Park (2000)
• As Blumler and Gurevitch (1975:76), comparative analysis has “the
capacity to render the invisible visible, to draw our attention to
aspects of any media system, including our own, that ‘’may be taken
for granted and difficult to detect when the focus is on only one
national case’’.”

Comparative analysis and comparative political
communication research
• Comparative analysis, especially in the US, was tied to
modernization theory, which compared world press systems against
the liberal theory, with the focus being on underdeveloped countries
and not authoritarian systems (Hallin and Mancini, 2000, 13)
Has become the standard methodology in much of the Social
Sciences, but has developed slowly in communications because the
focus previously had been on media effects of particular messages
on individual attitudes (Hallin and Mancini, 2000)
Emile Durkheim (1965) in The Rules of Sociological Method: “We
have only one means of demonstrating that one phenomena is the
cause of another: it is to compare the cases where they are
simultaneously present or absent.”
Thus is allows us to test hypotheses about the interrelationships
among social phenomena

Comparative political communication research
in an age of globalization
•Challenges posed by globalization demand that comparative political
communication research adopts new theories and methods
•Curran and Park (2000) for instance emphasise that research into
the relationship between globalization and the media needs to develop
a stronger comparative research tradition, going beyond the
UK and US (in Matos, 2012, 16)
•*Esser and Pfetsch (2004; 384) argue that it is mainly through
comparative research that one is aware of other political and
communications systems, being able to assess the merits and
limitations of one’s own system and acquiring a whole new wealth of
knowledge of other political and cultural models.
* As Hallin and Mancini (2000) state, it can be ethnocentric itself,
imposing on diverse systems a framework that reflects a particular
worldview

Significance of comparative research (Esser and
Pfetsch, 2004)
• Comparative political communication research can be defined as
comparisons between a minimum of two political systems or
cultures.
Differs from non-comparative research in three main
points:
1) it involves a particular strategy to gain insight, which is
essentially of an international nature;
2) attempts to reach conclusions, the scope of which cover more
than one system and more than one culture;
3) explains differences and similarities between objects of analysis
with the contextual conditions of the surrounding systems or
culture.
The Almond et al (2003) input/output model for instance highlights
the relationship between politics and the media. Both can be seen as
two autonomous, distinctive systems with different rationales and
objectives: politics primarily aims at generating...decisions, whereas
the media aim at generating publicity for political actors.

Pfetsch, 2004, 389)
• Studies such as the Almond and Powell (2003) and the Hallin and
Mancini (2000) focus on looking at the macro-level, on the
characteristics of media systems in the countries in order to develop
a model of comparison.
• “In comparative research, one of the primary objectives consists in
generalising, contextualising and building middle-range theories of
communication” (i.e. Agenda-setting, Priming and Framing
theories)
Authors argue that the processes that have attracted
attention from a comparative perspective have been:
1) Process of political socialization;
2) Perception of political processes and the impact of election
campaigning on the formation of public opinion;
3) Political public relations and its effects;
4) Interactions between political communication structures and
political communication culture

Pfetsch, 2004)
• The relationship between media and election campaigning are
also part of comparative political communication research
• The comparative perspectives on election campaigning throughout
the world are concerned with campaign management and
campaign coverage, usually inserted in debates on
“Americanization”, modernization or globalization.
• The discussion on “Americanization” of election campaigning or
“personalization” is basically concerned in assessing the orientation
of these campaigns towards the American model
National and global elements in campaigning:
Issues that are of concern include electoral systems; system of
party competition; legal regulation of election campaigns; degree of
professionalization of election campaigns and the national political
culture, among others.

Comparing Media Systems and Political Communications

Classic media liberal theory
 What are some of the duties demanded of the
media?:

1) Act as a watchdog and scrutinise governments
2) To provide accurate, correct and intelligent
information of daily events
3) Reflect the spectrum of public opinion and the
diverse groups and interests in society
4) Serve as a forum for the exchange of
comments/criticisms (i.e. public sphere)

Democratic media and their duties
• Multiple systems exist, with no uniform model, although the US
liberal model is considered the norm of democratic media
• Basic characteristics of democratic media:
• 1) independence from the state;
• 2) diversity of views;
• 3) press freedom.

Duties of democratic media:

• 1) To exercise the watchdog function and scrutinise governments;
• 2) Supply accurate and sufficient information;
• 3) To represent the diversity of the spectrum of public opinion
(Siebert, Peterson and Schramm’s Four Theories of the Press is
considered a classic in the field).

Four Theories of the Press: the Authoritarian,
Libertarian, Social Responsibility and Soviet
Communist Concepts of What the Press Should Be and
Do)
• “To see the differences between press systems in full
perspective, one must look at the social systems in
which the press functions. To see the social systems in
their true relationship to the press, one has to look at
certain basic beliefs and assumptions which the society
holds: the nature of man, the nature of society and the
state, the relation of man to the state, and the nature of
knowledge and truth. Thus, in the last analysis the
difference between press systems is one of
philosophy……” (Siebert, Peterson and Schramm, 1956, 2).

Four Theories of the Press
• Aim was to highlight the link between the mass media and political
systems, with the recognition of the fact that the press are
dependent on the impact of social, political and economic structures
of the society they are inserted in
• Focus was on three countries, US, UK and Soviet model
Questions asked:
“Why is the press as it is? Why does it serve different purposes and
appear in widely different forms in different countries? Why is the
press.....of Argentina so different from that of Great Britain?”
Thesis of the book:
“....is that the press always takes on the form and coloration of the
social and political structures within which it operates. ....it reflects
the system of social control whereby the relations of individuals and
institutions are adjusted. We believe that an understanding of these
aspects of society is basic to any systematic understanding of the
press.”

The Authoritarian theory
• Developed in the 16th and 17th centuries and based on the
philosophy of the absolute power of the monarch
• Influenced by authoritarian political thought, from Plato
to Machiavelli
• Small unaccountable elites controlling the mass media –
truth was seen as belonging to a few wise men who were
in the position to guide their fellow men
• Government controls the media through patents, guilds,
licensing and censorship
• Government is not open to questioning and those who
do can be punished
• Authoritarian practice found in many parts of the world

The Libertarian theory
• Started to develop in the 17th century, flourished in the 19th century
and undermined the authoritarian theory
• Influenced by the writings of Milton and Mill and the philosophy of
the Enlightenment
• Attacks and criticism of government is encouraged, and there are no
restrictions on import or export of media messages across nations
• Truth is no longer conceived as the property of power
• Media seen as a “free marketplace of ideas” – all ideas should get
fair hearing, from majorities to minorities, the weak to the strong
• Media should be an instrument for checking on government
• Media are controlled by “self-righting process of truth” in the “free
market place of ideas”, and by courts

Social Responsibility theory
• Development of the 20th century press created a situation where the
control of the press began to be exercised by a powerful few (i.e.
media owners)
• Connected to the Hutchins Commission reports
• Media has obligations to society and should be socially responsible.
Journalists should be made accountable to the public
• Not so easy anymore to be the “market place of ideas”, with the
owners exercising influence over the publication of facts, or the
version of facts
• Media should inform, entertain and sell
• The media are controlled through consumer action and professional
ethics

The Soviet-totalitarian theory
• Tied to the ideology of communism (Lenin, Marx and Stalin) and to
the development of the authoritarian theory
• Present in the Soviet Union, but similar things were done by the
Nazis and Italians
• Media should contribute to the success of the party in power, the
Soviet socialist system
• Media organizations not to be privately owned but should attend to
the needs of the working class
• Differs from the authoritarian theory due to the fact that the media
has certain responsibilities to meet audiences’ needs
• Media are controlled through surveillance and economic or political
action of government
• Ownership is public, state-owned and controlled and exists as an
arm of the state

Significance and limitations of the Siebert,
Peterson and Schramm model
• Four Theories of the Press came out during the Cold War context
• As Hallin and Mancini (2004) point out, many variations have been
proposed over the years (i.e. Altschull, 1995; Hacthen, 1996; Mundt,
1991 and Picard, 1985).
Criticisms:
• Too broad;
• Authors did not look at the actually functioning of media systems;
• Models are judged in terms of their distance from the neutral
“watchdog” liberal model of the press free
• As Hallin and Mancini (2004) note, it is possible to say that Western
Europe has largely combined the libertarian model (unregulated
commercial and party press and tradition of advocacy journalism);
social responsibility model (i.e. right of reply laws) and the
authoritarian tradition (i.e. Gaullist state broadcasting in France).

Blumler and Gurevitch (1975) (in Hallin and
Mancini, 2000)
Proposed 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;
4) the nature of the legitimating creed of media institutions.

As Gurevitch and Blumler (2004: 335) state, good comparative
political communication research can be characterised as being an
investigation of the impact of political cultures on political
communications in different societies
Advantages of comparative research is that it functions as an antidote
against naive universalism (i.e. Eurocentrism), or the assumption
that research findings of one society are applicable everywhere
(Blumler and Gurevitch, 1990, 308)

Comparing Media Systems (Hallin and Mancini,
2000)
• Point out Four Theories of the Press as their starting point, but that
its scope is so grand that it is almost superficial
• Authors’ study covers the media systems of the US, Canada and
most of Europe – limit themselves to North America and W. Europe

Authors include 3 models:
1)Liberal Model – prevails in Britain, Ireland and North America
2)Democratic Corporatist Model – Northern Europe
3) Polarized Pluralist Model or Mediterranean – Dominance of
market mechanisms and of commercial media (Southern Europe).
• Authors state that their models of media systems can be useful to
scholars working on other regions as points of reference
• Analysis is limited to the print press and broadcasting, but could
certainly include film, music and other entertainment

Four dimensions to analyse media systems in North
Europe and America (in Hallin and Mancini, 2004)
Developed further from Blumler and Gurevitch (1975):
• 1) the development of media markets – emphasis is given here on
the strong or weak development of mass circulation press;
• 2) political parallelism – the degree and nature of the links between
the media and political parties, or the extent that the media system
reflects political divisions. Public broadcasting systems and the
regulatory agencies have a significant relationship to politics;
• 3) the development of journalistic professionalism – refers to
norms and codes of the journalism profession, the tradition of
neutrality, impartiality and objectivity against militant and advocacy
forms.
• 4) the degree and nature of state intervention in the media system
– the role that the state has and its relationship to the media, and
refers largely to governmental control or media independence from
the state.

Three Models of Media Systems
(Hallin and Mancini, 2004)
Mediterranean Democratic Liberal
(Southern Corporatist (North America)
Europe) (Northern
Europe)
Newspaper Low circulation; High circulation Medium
(market) elite-oriented

Political High parallelism; External Neutral
parallelism external pluralism; party commercial press;
pluralism; press; PSB internal pluralism
politics/broadcast autonomy
Professionalization Weak; journalism Strong Strong
of journalism political activism professionalization; professionalization;
not differentiated institutionalised non-
self-regulation institutionalised
Role of the State Strong state Strong state Market dominated;
intervention intervention; strong weak PSB
PSB

Comparing Media Systems (Hallin and Mancini,
2000)
• Models should not be understood as describing static media systems
• Also, although Italy and Spain are in the Democratic Corporatist
Model and in Southern Europe, the former is different from the
latter, which had a much later transition to democracy
• Media systems evolve over time – the globalization and
commercialization of the media has led to the convergence of
media systems
Some problems detected in media systems since the 80’s:
1) Public broadcasting in decline versus expansion of commercial
broadcasting
2) Deregulation trends saw wider media concentration and
proliferation of multi-channel TV
3) Rise of television as political influence
4) Rise of cynicism and decline of interest in politics

Comparing Media Systems continued

Some conclusions:
 Anglo-American or Liberal media is taken as the norm against
which other media systems are measured
 Journalistic professionalism is widely used to compare media
systems (i.e. Issues of autonomy and codes of practice)
 UK system – “hybrid” – newspapers are seen as more partisan than
commercial;
 UK and Europe have strong PSB tradition in contrast again to the
US
 Multiple media systems exist throughout the world – there
is no real uniform model for democratic media in any part of the
world

Comparing media systems: Southern Europe and Latin
America (Hallin and Papathanassopoulos (2002, 3)
• Historical perspectives: State intervention in South America
has reinforced governmental power (Waisbord, 2000)
Similarities between Latin American media systems and Southern
European (Hallin and Papathanassopoulos (2002, 3):
• 1) the low circulation of newspapers;
2) tradition of advocacy reporting;
3) instrumentalization (political use) of privately-owned media;
4) politicization of broadcasting and regulation;
5) limited development of journalism autonomy.

But - Market liberalisation and political democratisation have
assigned new roles for state (more democratic participatory) and
market (liberating versus oppressive of debate)(Matos, 2008)

Media and democracy in Latin America (in
Matos, 2012)
Comparative political communication research offers us a set of
knowledge that increases our intellectual sophistication and
understanding of the complexities of the world and of other cultures.
•It forces us not to be narrow-minded, obliging us to deal with other
cultures and ideas.
* Real, in depth knowledge is all about comparison
Triangulation methodology: online survey with segments of the
audience in Brazil in contrast to audience research done by Ofcom in
the UK: textual analysis of programmes from the public and
commercial media; interviews with journalists and policy-makers
PSBs in comparative perspective:
Public communications in Latin America have traditionally been
appropriated for the individual personal interests of politicians in
contrast to the public service and educational role in UK

Media and democracy in Latin continued
• Made reference to Hallin and Mancini (2000) model to talk about
Latin America in comparative perspective
• Latin America – combined European models and the US liberal

Contrast to Southern Europe:
• Similarities exist in terms of:
• a) the existence of a small elite circulation newspaper press;
• b) the dominance of the market forces and commercialization;
• c) politicization of broadcasting and instrumentalization of
privately-owned media;
• d) tradition of advocacy in journalism
• Latin American countries are seeking to deepen media
democratization and create regulation policies for the public interest

PSB tradition versus citizens’ wider knowledge of
politics (Curran and Iyengar, 2009)
BBC is pointed out by researchers as being able to
deliver more elections news, produce longer stories of
greater substance and give more attention to minority
parties

Studies (Curran and Iyengar, 2009) have shown how
certain countries with a strong PSB tradition, like Britain
with its dual system and the Scandinavian nations,
where the state subsides minority media outlets, citizens
have more knowledge of politics and international affairs
than countries where the commercial media system
predominates (in Matos, 2008)

Some contemporary examples of media
regulation debates
• Censorship versus regulation
• The Leveson inquiry in the UK (2011/12) – newspaper
market operates on a system of self-regulation and
broadcasting on regulation policies committed to the
public interest (i.e. Ofcom)
• National Confederation of Communications debates in
Brazil (2009)
• Market liberals argue against regulation and view it as
attempts to “control the press” and curtail press freedom
• Regulati0n is based more on demands for a socially
responsible media, and has been largely adopted in the
UK in favour of the public interest

Conclusions
• Comparative analysis is an important tool for research in a rapidly
changing and globalised world
• Multiple media systems exist throughout the world
• Divisions between the models (authoritarian versus libertarian; or
liberal versus democratic corporatist is not so clear cut)
• US liberal model is still seen as the norm to which all media should
aspire too, including the European tradition and the UK hybrid
system
• Changes in media landscape in Europe have seen an increasing
commercialization of the media (i.e. UK)
• Media systems evolve as a result of various political, economic and
technological changes in societies
• Media convergence and expansion of technologies since the 1980’s
has reshaped significantly the media landscape
• Hallin and Mancini’s model does not give enough emphasis to the
role of new technologies (Norris, 2009)

Seminar activities and questions
• 1) Discuss the Four Theories of the Press. What were the
criticisms made to the book? Do you agree?
• 2) Examine Hallin and Mancini’s model for comparing media
systems. Use it to discuss a media system of your choice in
comparative perspective.
• 3) According to the texts you had to read for today (i.e. Matos;
Esser and Pfetsch, etc) what are the merits and benefits of
comparative political communication research? Why should
we examine the press through comparative analysis?
• 4) What are the key concerns of comparative political
communication research? Discuss its relationship to
globalization and how comparative political communication
research differs from non-comparative studies.

Readings for week 7
Required texts:
• Lasswell, H. D. (2010) “The theory of political propaganda” in D. K.
THussu, (Ed)., International Communication: A Reader, pp 329-
332. London: Routledge. 11
• Nye, J. S. (2010) “Public diplomacy and soft power” in D. K.
THussu, (Ed)., International Communication: A Reader, pp 333-
344. London: Routledge.
• Price, M. (2010) “Towards a foreign policy of information space” in
D. K. Thussu, (Ed)., International Communication: A Reader, pp
345-368. London: Routledge.
Additional:
Kellner, D. (2004) “Media propaganda and the spectacle in the war
on Iraq: A critique of the US broadcasting networks” in Cultural
Studies, Critical Methodologies, 4, 329-338.
Essay 1 to be submitted:
• Monday, 12th November

Comparing Media Systems and Political Communications

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to Comparing Media Systems and Political Communications (20)

More from Carolina Matos (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Comparing Media Systems and Political Communications