Tuesday, November 22, 2011

Theories of the Press or Media


Theories of the Press / Media

Communication Theory of Media and Press
Western theories of the mass media (particularly of the news media) were first propounded by Fred Siebert, Theodore Peterson and Wilbur Schramm in their book, Four Theories of the Press.

These theories have now come to be termed ‘normative’ in the sense that they ‘ mainly exPress ideas of how the media ougth to, or can be expected to , operate under a prevailing set of conditions and values. So, strictly speaking they are hypotheses rather than theories. These ‘theories’ were first enunciated in the United States during the height of the ‘cold –war’ against communism and the Soviet Union. They were thus part of American propaganda and only loosely based on actual practices in the media. They idealis the American practices, which are touted as being democratic and socially responsible, and deride’ Soviet’ and Communist’, practices as being ‘dictatorial’ and authoritarian’. They do not take into account the public service models of print and electronic media widely accepted in Western Europe, and in many countries of Asia and Africa.

The ‘ original ‘ four theories of the Press / media are authoritarian theory, libertarian theory, social responsibility theory, and Soviet media theory. Each of them suits particular political and economic circumstances, and focuses not so much on the relationship between  the Press and readers as on the relationship between the Press and government. The major concern is with ownership and control rather than with different perspectives of Journalism or the propels right to information. Siebert, Peterson and Schramm limit there analysis to ‘ four’ theories’ three more need to be added to the original four to take account of circumstance in the developing countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America. The last three could be termed ‘Developmental or Alternative Theorize’ of the media.

Authoritarian Theory
According to this theory the mass media, though not under the direct control of the State and the ruling classes must do their bidding. The Press and other media are expected to respect authority, to be always subordinate to established power and authority, and ,therefore, should avoid offending the majority or dominant moral, political and economic values. Journalists lack independence and freedom; their reports have to be submitted for advance censorship. This censorship is justified on the ground that the State must always take precedence over an individual’s right to freedom of expression. Such censorship is more rigidly enforced in times of war and during ‘ internal’ and ‘ external’ emergencies. It needs to be noted that both dictatorial and democratic regimes resort to such authoritarian control of the media. The strictness with which the Official Secrets Act is enforced in Britain and in India is a case in point.

Libertarian of Free Press Theory
The  basis of the ‘ free Press’ theory goes back to 17th century England when the printing Press made it possible to print several copies of a book or pamphlet at a comparatively low price. In contrast with the Authoritarian Theory, libertarianism is founded on the fundamental right of an individual to freedom of expression. Western liberal democracies swear by this belief. The first amendment in the American constitution is an embodiment of this theory’ it flows from the individual’s right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The individual, not the State or society, is supreme, and popular will (vox poplin) is granted precedence over the power of the State. The argument is that ‘ truth’ can be arrived at only through the free expression of diverse points of view, o matter how erroneous. The great apologists of this theory were John Milton, the epic poet (in his Aeropagitica) and John Stuart Mill (in his essay, on Liberty). A free Press is seen as essential to a free society and the dignity of the individual. Moreover, the freedom to publish is often linked to the right to property, and the free market system.

In practice, however, the theory provides the prerogative of free speech only to rich and the powerful elites of a society. The marginalized groups do not have access to, and indeed , cannot afford the means or the tools of free expression. What happens on the ground is that media merchants and media monopolies (e.g. the big newspaper chains, the television companies) exploit that freedom to expand their empires. Market forces rather than publish good mould the kind of information to be purveyed. The theory thus protects media owners rather than the rights of editors and journalists, or of the public. What the theory offers, in sum is ‘power without social responsibility’.

Social Responsibility Theory
This theory can be said to have been derived from the Hutchins Report (entitled ‘ A Free and Responsibic Press: A General Report on Mass Communication: Newspapers, Radio, Motion Magazines and Books’). The Hutchins Commission on Freedom of the Press (1947) was established and financed by Henry Luce and Time Magazine at a time in the history of American Journalism when Press barons like Luce sensed that government regulations on ‘yellow journalism’ were round the corner. Moreover, the years following the Second World War witnessed the rise of the Democratic Party in the United States, the restraints on business under the New Deal, and the strengthening of the trade union movement. The American Press (which was known to be largely pro-Republican) feared that the federal Government would issue legalization to regulate the ‘freedom of the Press’, despite the First Amendment.

Robert Hutchins, the chairman of the Commission, was the Chancellor of the Chicago University at that time, and he was assisted by twelve others who were experts in different fields. The Report appeared in two volumes: the firs on newspapers, the second on the other media.

The Commission found that the free market approach to Press freedom had not met the informational and social needs of the less well of classes; in fact, it had increased the power of a single class. There was little expression of diverse views; the emergence of radio, film and television also suggested that some public control and some means of accountability had become necessary.

Thus, the theory had its roots in the views that ha media had certain obligations to society to serve its needs, rather than that of the free market. Hence the need for high professional strands; of truth, accuracy, objectivity an balance. Self-regulation and also state regulations were imperative. Public interest was a greater value than unregulated freedom of expression. So news offensive to religious and ethnic minorities, or news likely to led social violence needed to be underplayed. The Hutchins Report led to the establishment of Press Councils, the drawing up of codes of ethics, anti-monopoly legislation, and to Press subsides to small newspapers. State and Public intervention in the exercise of free expression was, therefore, considered legitimate under certain circumstances.

Soviet Media Theory
This Theory is derived from Lenin’s application of Marx and Engel’s dictum in The German Ideology that, ‘the ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas’. The media are thus a means of ‘mental production’ of the ideology. Hence the need for their control by working class, that is, through the Communist Party, so that the interests of the working class rather than those of the ruling or elite class are projected. In a Socialist society, therefore, the media should be used as tools to ‘socialize’ the people; the primary functions of the media are to educate, inform, motivate and mobilize citizens, and to support ‘progressive’ movements everywhere. What is expected is ‘objective’ (or ‘scientific’) presentation of society. Censorship and restriction on the media are legitimate for the media are accountable to the State, to the public and to the Party. The public is encouraged to provide feedback, as it is only in this way that the media will be able to serve the public interest. 

Development Communication Theory
The 'Four Theories Of The Press' are not full applicable to the experience of the non-aligned countries of Asia, Africa, and South America. While in most Asian and African countries, the media (especially the broadcast media) are owned ad run by the State, in Latin American countries, commercial ownership of all the mass media is the norm.  A common factor in experience of the majority of the non-aligned countries is the dependence on industrialized countries for both hardware and software. Another common factor is the commitment of these nations to social and economic development on their own terms: they would like to employ the mass media as tools for 'development', for 'nation-building'. The larger national interest and the public good are of paramount importance to them. So certain freedoms need to be curbed in the interest of say national integration, and economic and social development. Hence the stress on 'development communication' and 'development journalism'. According to development theorists, journalists have the responsibility to support national governments in their efforts at eradicating illiteracy promoting family planning, promoting national integration, and increasing production and employment. The weakness in the theory is that 'development' is often equated with government propaganda.

Democratization Theory
Latin American critics (notably Paulo Freire, Reyes Matta, Luis Beltan, Diaz Bordenave and Valerio Fuenzalida) of commercialized ('commodotized’) media have come out strongly against the top-down, one way and non-participative character of contemporary mass media. Like the development theorists, they lay stress on the positive uses of the media, on the need for 'access' and the the 'right to communicate'.  They insist on the need for local and community participation in media and news production. The people must speak for themselves, the argue, not through professional journalists and producers.

What is vehemently opposed also is commercial, political or bureaucratic control of the media, which exist to serve audiences, not the interests of government or commercial enterprises. The 'demassification' of the media, according to this theory, is as vital as 'democratization'. The ultimate purpose is to put the media in the hands of communities (as in people's radio) for their own 'liberation' through a process of 'conscientization'. Thus is created in Reyes Matta's words, a 'critical national audience'.





See Also :


2 comments:

  1. it would have been nice if you had also spoken about hypodermic needle theory and agenda setting theory

    ReplyDelete