Mass Media and Political Communication in New Democracies

Katrin Voltmer

• Publisher: Taylor & Francis
• Year: 2004
• eBook ISBN: 9781134304950
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Media & Communications Industry
• Index: Business

This book examines how political communication and the mass media have played a central role in the consolidation of emerging democracies around the world.

Covering a broad range of political and cultural contexts, including Eastern and Southern Europe, Latin America, Asia and Africa, this new volume investigates the problems and conflicts arising in the process of establishing an independent media and competitive politics in post-autocratic societies. Considering the changing dynamic in the relationship between political actors, the media and their audience, the authors of this volume address the following issues:

• 
  
  

• changing journalistic role perceptions and journalistic quality

• 
  
  

• the reasons and consequences of persisting instrumentalization of the media by political actors

• 
  
  

• the role of the media in election campaigns

• 
  
  

• the way in which the citizens interpret political messages and the extent to which the media influence political attitudes and electoral behaviour

• 
  
  

• the role of the Internet in building a democratic public sphere

This book will be of great interest to all those studying and researching democracy and democratization, comparative politics, political communication, journalism, media and the Internet.

1
The mass media and the dynamics political communication in processes of democratization

An introduction

Katrin Voltmer

The unexpected magnitude of the ‘third wave’ of formerly autocratic countries establishing, or beginning to establish, democratic institutions over the last decade of the twentieth century has triggered an unprecedented interest in processes of social and political change. In fact, the study of transition to democracy, which used to be a specialized niche of students of particular areas, such as Southern Europe and Latin America (Gunther et al. 1995; Linz and Stepan 1996), has become something like a growth industry, with an enormous output of publications.

Transitions to democracy are social experiments that affect virtually all aspects of a society. They therefore provide a unique opportunity for deepening both theoretical and empirical understanding of the functioning of democratic institutions in different cultural and political contexts. The development of recently emerging democracies shows that democracy is a highly contingent enterprise, the success of which is not only dependent on the ‘right’ institutional design, but also on a multitude of other factors that need to be taken into account if we are to understand the conditions under which new democracies work. While some new democracies have successfully adopted the institutions and procedures of their Western role models (for example the east-central European countries that joined the European Union in May 2004), many others fall short of any standards of a viable democracy. In order to explain the apparent variation, many authors have argued that research on democratization needs to broaden its conceptual scope by taking organizations and processes into account that are not directly related to governmental decision-making but nevertheless might have a significant impact on the quality of democratic institutions and the way in which they operate (Grugel 2002; Merkel 1998).

The mass media are one such organization that has been largely ignored by mainstream democratization studies in spite of the fact that their performance is believed to have a pivotal impact not only on the functioning of other democratic institutions but also on the viability of the democratic process as a whole. However, many scholars in the West have argued that the media’s ability to promote democracy is limited and have even held them responsible for many of the deficiencies from which established democracies appear to suffer (Entman 1989; Patterson 1998). This book aims to explore the role of the media in emerging democracies and the reasons for their success, or failure, in contributing to the consolidation of the new political order. More specifically, the chapters of this volume analyse how the media position themselves in the new political circumstances, and how other participants—such as governments, political parties and citizens—respond to the changing media environment. The book provides a unique comparative perspective on the issue by contrasting the experience of a broad range of new democracies from Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe and Latin America. While most of the chapters focus on one particular country, they address similar questions and thus collectively make it possible to draw more generalized conclusions about the expectations, problems and conflicts arising as the media alter their role from an instrument of autocratic power to an independent voice in the political debate.

This introductory chapter seeks to lay out the general theoretical foundation for studying the role of the mass media in transitions to democracy and the consolidation process thereafter. In the first part of this chapter I will present the normative arguments that establish the media as a democratic institution. Starting with a discussion of first principles is important for clarifying the underlying standards on which any evaluative judgments about the media’s contribution to strengthening, or undermining, the viability of new democracies can be based. However, as this chapter suggests, the normative claims about the media’s democratic role suffer from various inconsistencies that are bound to cause conflicts and misunderstandings in processes of democratizing the media. The second section of this chapter presents a heuristic model of political communication as a system of interaction that places the media in a broader context of the political process, and thus helps to organize theorizing on the role of the mass media in new democracies. This model serves to better understand the interdependence of mass communication and democratic politics and the consequences this may have on the way in which political messages are conveyed and employed in different political and cultural contexts. As yet, we lack a thorough understanding of whether—and, if so, how— political communication in new democracies differs from the situation in established democracies, which is the reason why much of the literature referred to in the following paragraphs relates to Western democracies. Hence, it remains an open empirical question how far these approaches can be applied to countries outside the western world. The chapters of this volume seek to provide some answers to this question.

The mass media as a democratic institution

From the early beginnings of democratic thought in the eighteenth century, political philosophers have recognized the crucial role of un-inhibited public debate and free speech, which was later extended to the demand for a free press (Keane 1991). Several arguments have been brought forward to justify freedom of the press, the most common idea being that the media provide for a free ‘marketplace of ideas’ where contradicting voices compete for public recognition without the interference of the state.¹ The notion of a ‘marketplace of ideas’ is based on the liberal belief that no single agency be allowed to have the last say on the course of politics. Rather, it is through public exchange of argument and counter-argument that the ‘truth’ eventually emerges (Mill 1859, reprinted 1974). From the perspective of the ‘marketplace of ideas’ argument, the media are usually assigned a more passive role, serving as a forum where a variety of groups and individuals are given the opportunity to express their views. In many respects the situation in new democracies appears quite similar to the struggle for an autonomous public sphere in the eighteenth century. In order to encourage the development of a vivid civil society and to overcome the autocratic dominance of political elites, it is of crucial importance that alternative views have access to the forum of the media, regardless of the validity of their truth claims.

Albeit central to the liberal understanding of media in democracy, the premises of the ‘marketplace of ideas’ have been criticized for several reasons. In particular, it has been questioned whether the confrontation of competing views is really the best way of revealing ‘the truth’, as it may in fact contribute to confusion and the aggravation of conflicts. In the worst case, it might not be the best argument that prevails but rather that of those who are able to voice their views most effectively (Gutmann and Thompson 1996). Another disputed aspect of the ‘marketplace of ideas’ argument is whether and to what extent the media themselves may actively contribute to the public debate by promoting a particular point of view. In other words, are partisan media a legitimate part of the ‘marketplace of ideas’, or is their role confined to that of a neutral conveyor of the views of other actors? The distinction between internal and external, or vertical and horizontal, diversity acknowledges that there are different possible ways of establishing a vital ‘marketplace of ideas’ (McQuail 1986; Napoli 1999; Voltmer 2000). Internal, or vertical, diversity denotes to a situation where the full range of relevant views is represented within a particular media outlet, whereas external, or horizontal, diversity emerges as the aggregate of a variety of biased media. Thus, the meaning of diversity and the way in which a ‘marketplace of ideas’ can be brought about are not self-evident, and are likely to be disputed between the state, societal groups and the media in the course of transition to democracy.

While the ‘marketplace of ideas’ argument places political actors and their need to make themselves heard at the centre of concern, the notion of an information function focuses on the individual citizen as the main beneficiary of public communication. In a political system where political power is allocated on the basis of popular decision-making, the competence and rationality of the citizens is of utmost importance. In fact, without the citizens’ ability to make informed choices the legitimacy of democratic elections would be seriously flawed (Dahl 1989). Hence, the quality of democratic decision-making is closely linked to the quality of information provided by the media. The two roles of the media—forum and information provider—are not mutually exclusive, but neither are they necessarily identical. What serves the publicity needs of political actors is not automatically the kind of information that fosters understanding and rational decision-making on the side of the citizens, and vice versa.

However, defining the exact meaning of ‘information quality’ is an almost impossible task as individuals differ in terms of their abilities and needs. Comprehensiveness seems to be an obvious feature. Yet, with the increasing complexity of political issues selectivity, meaningful simplification and, to some extent, interpretation of otherwise incomprehensible issues and events are equally important. One way of reducing the complexity of the political world is biased information that organizes the ongoing debate on the background of particular value preferences. Lemert (1989) argues that media which are committed to a particular cause offer ‘mobilizing information’ that has the potential to strengthen political identities and encourages participation.² Evidently, there is a trade-off between the ideal of comprehensive and neutral information that presents all sides of a controversy, and politicization that mobilizes citizens to take part in the political process.

Information quality and the need for orientation are probably of even more significance in new democracies, especially during the period immediately following the breakdown of the old regime. While in established democracies citizens acquire their political knowledge over a long period of time, usually without making a particular effort to learn about political issues, citizens in new democracies have to cope with a large range of hitherto unknown institutions and procedures. In addition, it can be assumed that, in a situation where traditional agencies of socialization—such as political parties and trade unions—have lost their credibility or even ceased to exist, the media are left as the main source where citizens can obtain the information they need to take part in public life.

A third argument for the media as a democratic institution is the idea that they act as a ‘watchdog’ or ‘fourth estate’ that keeps political authorities accountable by monitoring their activities and investigating possible abuses of political power (Curran 1991). The concept of a ‘fourth estate’ is related to the principle of division of powers that developed during the eighteenth century as an attempt to curb the then all-powerful absolute state. Some authors even argue that the control function of the media is more important than their information function because it protects citizens from state interference into individual freedom (Kelley and Donway 1990).

In the context of transition to democracy, the watchdog role of the media cannot be overstated, as one of the main tasks of democratization is to establish mechanisms that hold political elites accountable and responsive to the people. However, the relationship between the media and the state in new democracies is more complex. Undoubtedly, it is essential for the emancipation of society that state authorities are challenged. Yet, at the same time, the legitimacy of the new regime is often highly fragile and there is a risk of overstretching the capacities of the new government, especially when faced with mounting economic problems or the collapse of public security. Furthermore, the media themselves are often unable to survive without state subsidies, which might severely impair their ability to criticize political power holders. Paradoxically, the media’s ability to safeguard democratic accountability eventually depends on the degree to which political institutions have adopted democratic structures and procedures (Morris and Waisbord 2001; Price et al.2002).

The three sets of arguments that established the normative justification of the political role of the media in Western democracies—diversity and the ‘marketplace of ideas’, information and enlightened citizenship, and public watchdog and government accountability—have in common their aim to protect the objectives and interests of the individual vis-à-vis the state. What these classical concepts largely ignore, though, is the notion of a public interest that exists over and above the mere aggregation of particularistic interests. McQuail (1992:66–78) in his normative theory of media performance therefore includes ‘social order’ alongside ‘freedom’ and ‘equality’ as one of three basic communication values that need to be implemented in media organizations and journalistic practice. However, there is no objective standard as to how to balance particularistic and collective communicative needs. Consequently, established democracies have found very different solutions to this problem, with a particular mix of journalistic rights, on the one hand, and obligations imposed on the media, on the other. The tension between freedom and the public interest can be expected to be a central conflict in new democracies. These societies are frequently faced with fragile identities, deep social divisions and unfinished nation-building, making integration and unity of overriding importance. At the same time, there is the risk that governments instrumentalize the need for collective identity and consensus to justify the oppression of dissonant views and opposition.

Much of the existing literature on the media in new democracies has focused on problems of media policy: how the normative standards discussed above have been implemented in the structure of post-authoritarian media systems, and whether existing political and economic conditions in particular countries foster or inhibit the media’s ability to fulfil their democratic role (Curran and Park 2000; Downing 1996; Paletz et al.1995; Splichal 1994). However, important as this research may be for the study of the media in new democracies, it does not investigate the implications of the media’s actual performance for the democratic consolidation process. Technically speaking, the media are treated as a dependent variable, subjected to political interference or market forces, rather than an independent variable that affects the way in which other political actors operate. In other words, the media in new democracies are not only subjected to change, they are also actively taking part in the process of democratization by shaping the orientations and actions of other participants.

This perspective has only recently entered the academic debate. For example, Mughan and Gunther suggest a more complex approach that conceptualizes the role of the media in processes of political change as a ‘reciprocal relationship between the media and the politics of democracy and democratization’ (2000:2). According to the authors, this interactive relationship is to be understood as an interplay of macro-level conditio...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half Title page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• List of illustrations
• Notes of contributors
• Series editor's preface
• Preface
• 1 The mass media and the dynamics of political communication in processes of democratization An introduction
• Part I The mass media and journalistic practice Normative dilemmas, professionalization and political instrumentalization
• PART II Political parties, governments and elections: communication strategies and the mediatization of politics
• PART III Audience responses to political messages Interpretations and effects
• Index