Foreign theories and conceptions of journalism

Authoritarian theory holds that journalism should always be subordinate to the interests of the state in maintaining social order or achieving political goals (Siebert, Peterson, & Schramm 1956). At a minimum, the press is expected to avoid any criticisms of government officials and to do nothing to challenge the established order. The press may remain free to publish without prior censorship, but the state retains the right to punish journalists or close media outlets that overstep explicit or implicit limits on reporting and commentary.

Under more extreme authoritarianism, or totalitarianism, a closely censored press pro-actively promotes and extends a totalizing state control over society. In the context of the Cold War, the Soviet-communist theory stood out (Siebert, Peterson, & Schramm 1956), an approach perhaps best understood today as a variant of totalitarianism that includes Islamic and other forms of religious fundamentalism. Since the disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1991, versions of Marxist-Leninist, or Soviet, theory have survived in North Korea, Cuba, and Vietnam, and to a certain extent in China, as the most coherent, self-consciously elaborated examples. The Soviet normative theory of journalism posits that media should not be privately owned, should serve the interests of the working classes, and most importantly, should provide a complete, objective view of the world following Marxist-Leninist principles, as defined by the communist-party controlled state.

Another non-democratic normative theory is partly a product of western communication scholarship and foreign development projects. Development theory is authoritarianism for a good cause (® Development Journalism) supporting the economic development and nation-building efforts of impoverished societies (Schramm 1964, McQuail 1983). In the context of western dominance in international news gathering (® News Agencies) and in cable news, the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) has also framed development theory in cultural pluralist terms as the right to communicate (McBride et al. 1980) and, most recently, as the defense of global cultural diversity (® Right to Communicate; UNESCO; NWICO; Rogers, Everett; Schramm, Wilbur).

Libertarian theorysees the government as the primary if not only threat to press freedom. Perhaps the best known embodiment of the ideal is the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which specifies that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” This formulation expresses the ideal only in negative terms, as a freedom from state intervention. Presumably the press, left to its own devices, will represent diverse voices and hold government accountable, but the only requirement for the press is to pursue its own economic interests. Far from a caricature, this pure form of libertarianism is alive and well in the public pronouncements of many news media owners and managers as well as of some journalists (® Freedom of the Press, Concept).

Observers and activists who perceive that a pure market orientation does not necessarily support democracy have argued that the press must instead assume social responsibility. In the 1947 Hutchins report, the U.S. Commission on a Free and Responsible Press conceived of the chief responsibilities as factual accuracy, promotion of open debate, representation of diverse views, and protection of individual rights by serving as a watchdog that guards against government abuses of power.

Any theory that the press has a voluntary duty to perform positive functions could belong in this category, but social responsibility theory, as originally described (Siebert, Peterson, & Schramm 1956), clearly upheld the U.S. journalistic ideal of objectivity which stresses factual (especially investigative) reporting over commentary, the balancing of opposing viewpoints, and maintaining a neutral observer role for the journalist (Schudson 2001) (® Objectivity in Reporting; Investigative Reporting). This ideal has become dominant globally, even among journalists in countries where highly polarized political cultures make it difficult to put into practice (Hallin and Mancini 2004) (® Party-Press Parallelism; Journalists’ Role Perceptions; Comparative Research; Convergence of Media Systems).

Social responsibility theory lacks any systematic critique of capitalist media ownership and funding (Baker 2002; cf. McQuail 2005). Most journalistic professional exhortations about ethics are social responsibility theories in this sense (® Ethics in Journalism), including not only traditional defenses of investigative journalism but also the recent U.S. movement for civic journalism (®Public Journalism). Armed with enough courage, individual journalists are assumed capable of performing their democratic responsibilities.

Other democratic normative theories also concern social responsibilities, but emphasize some more than others

Representative liberal theory (Ferree et al. 2002) or democratic elite theory (Baker 2002) proposes that democracy works best with highly educated elites and specialized technicians in charge. In other words, the press should adopt a critical, serious tone in covering public affairs, defined as the activities primarily of government but also, in principle, of business or other powerful social institutions. Democratic elite theories tend to be skeptical, however, of whether the press can adequately report and analyze complex issues (e.g., Lippmann 1922) (® Lippmann, Walter).

In democratic participatory theory, journalism is called upon to promote actively the political involvement of citizens. The theory emphasizes principles such as popular inclusion, empowerment, and full expression through a range of communicative styles (Ferree et al. 2002; McQuail 1983). Its theorists emphasize diverse viewpoints and active citizen involvement more than the quality of the discourse (whether reasoned, critical, serious, or the like).

With his ideal of the public sphere (® Public Sphere; Habermas, Jürgen), the German sociologist and philosopher Jürgen Habermas (1989) combines concerns for the quality (reasoned, critical debate) with the quantity (broad representation and participation) of discourse that journalists mediate (Calhoun 1992). However, public sphere theory, also referred to asthe discursive (Ferree et al. 2002) or republican (Baker 2002) ideal, places the greatest emphasis on quality, narrowly conceived: the press should create a domination-free environment where the better argument can prevail in a quest for social consensus (® Deliberativeness in Political Communication). The public sphere should be free from the state as well as the market (® Coffee Houses as Public Sphere). Societies seem most likely to achieve the ideal during periods of democratic revolutionary effervescence, as in France and the United States at the end of the eighteenth century or in the Soviet Union and east-central Europe during the late 1980s.

Emerging in part as a critique of Habermas, postmodernor constructionist (Ferree et al. 2002) theory, like democratic participatory theories, is more tolerant of diverse styles and forms of discourse that journalists mediate.

Through broad reflection on the many strains of political theory, or through comparative research on media systems, normative theorizing can continue to play a key role in communication education and research (® Journalism Education; Professionalization of Journalism).

Literature:

1.Bakulev G.P. Mass communication. Western theories and concepts. - Moscow: Aspect Press, 2005.

2. Seibert F.S., Schramm W., T. Peterson. Four media theory, trans. from English. - M., 1998.

3. Zasursky Y.N. Journalism developing countries. - M., 1989.

4. Mikhailov S.A. Modern foreign journalism textbook. - St.: Izd Mikhailov, VA, 2005.