Theories of the Press / Media
 |
| Communication Theory of Media and 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
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
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
Robert Hutchins,
the chairman of the Commission, was the Chancellor of the Chicago University
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 :
it would have been nice if you had also spoken about hypodermic needle theory and agenda setting theory
ReplyDeletebruh
ReplyDelete