Th ,rffrra Liberal ernocratic iti n a d tt,e Media This chapter will outline the normative and practical implications of the liberal tradition on the organisation and structure of Western media systems , explore some of the applied criticisms of the liberal media model. The media in Australia occupy a prominent role in virtually all aspects of human affairs. The Australian media system, from its institutions and practices, through to society's expectations of its key purposes, has been shaped by myriad forces. One powerful influence on the form and structure of the Australian media system has been the liberal political tradition. Liberalism is a political doctrine that takes as its starting position a belief that individuals are rational, self-interested and competitive, are capable of Jiving freely and with minimum external interference. The origins of liberalism, which lie in European medieval society, were developed largely as a reaction to religious intol- erance and hereditary privilege. Its stress on the virtues of freedom, liberty and autonomy irrevocably challenged the repressive political, economic, religious and social order on which medieval society was based. The ideals that inspired lib- eralism, along with the democratic tradition, were later to strongly jnfluence the organisation of the state throughout the Western world. The modern Western liberal state is defined by a commitment to rule by the people, limited government, rep- resentative political institutions and a belief in the rights of the individual (Ball & Dagger 2004). For their part, the media are conceived as an institution to shield and protect the individual from the excesses of the state and to facilitate the rights and liberty 2 i MEDIA AND POLITICS of the citizenry. The media are regarded as servants of the people and one of the guardians of the independence of the political system. In order to facilitate this function, liberals argue that the sector must be pluralistic in terms of its ownership, with few, if any, restrictions on market entry. Media outlets should be privately owned and free from unnecessary intervention in their affairs by the state. This chapter introduces the principles underlying regulation of the media in Australia, their development and evolution, and their critics. What are media? It is useful to take the time to consider what we mean by media. Many of the scholars who write on the media rarely bother to define the term, assuming that we comprehend all that the term encompasses. Where scholars have made an effort to clarify the meaning of the term, there is substantial overlap in the definitions proffered. Consider the following descriptions: ® 'organising technologies which make mass communication possible' (McQuail 1994, p. 10) o 'methods of communication that can reach a large and potentially unlimited number of people simultaneously' (Hague & Harrop 2004, p. 10) o 'the technological vehicles through which mass communication takes place' (Turow 2003, p. 15) ® 'those societal institutions that are concerned with the production and distribution of all forms of knowledge, information and entertainment' (Heywood 2007, p. 232). All four definitions use the term to describe an instrumentality that is capable of communicating information, facts, opinions and ideas via a number of different platforms such as, but not limited to, newspapers, books, DVDs, radio, television, phone, magazines, cinemas, the internet and MP3 players. However, Heywood's usage of the term does vary subtly from the first three descriptions. Whereas the preceding definitions emphasise the material or technology that facilitates communication, Heywood's description highlights the important role of organisations and institutions that produce or manufacture communication more broadly. In doing so, his definition draws our attention to the political aspects of the media. There are many different ways of categorising media. Classifying media is a use- ful exercise because it enables us to make sense of what is a fairly complex and diverse array of instruments that have different capacities and impacts. How a CHAPTER ONE: THE LIBERAL DEMOCRATIC TRADITION AND THE MEDIA 13 scholar classifies media tells us quite a bit about their particular interest in the sub- ject area. While there are potentially many ways of categorising media, some of the more popular approaches include the following. Technology The nature of media technology has important consequences for what media can do, how we use them, who they can reach, and how policy makers regulate their use. Significant technological innovations have, in recent years, begun to significantly transform the mediascape. The old analogue technology, which was based on a linear model of transmission that offered limited flexibility in service delivery, is being replaced by more dynamic digital technologies that support multiple applications and high level user involvement in the creation and use of content. The various social, political and economic consequences of the dissolution of formerly distinct devices and platforms has opened up rich and vital new areas of media scholarship. New versus old Distinctions arc drawn between media that have a long-standing presence and those that arc new to audiences. This classification is useful because it enables scholars to consider the possible applications of newer forms of media and their wider consequences in political, social, cultural and economic terms. Mainstream versus alternative Some media, such as television, have popular appeal and are enjoyed by a broad cross-section of the population. In contrast, other media, such as computer games, arc more likely to be utilised by a specific demographic. Such a distinction enables scholars to contemplate which media particular individuals and groups are using and for what purpose, and to explore the different subcultures, conventions and practices that have formed around their use. Hot versus cold This distinction is derived from the work of Marshall McLuhan (1964), who argued that media could be divided into 'hot' and 'cold'. Cold media (for example, cartoons) are those that require active participation from the user because they are typically low on information and content, and thus force the subject to till in what is missing. In contrast, hot media (for example, television) are laden with visual and verbal ' I JI 1: I: I' I, ;\ ;, 41 MEDIA AND POLITICS content and so, as a result, require low levels of participation from the user. By categorising media in this manner, McLuhan draws attention to the demands that different media place on our senses. The evolution of liberal media principles While the liberal tradition has been a strong and persistent advocate of limited state intervention in the activities of the media (press), this form of arrangement has only been practised in the last 200 years and, even then, in mostly Western industrialised nations. There was no natural consensus between the state and the public about the necessity of a free press. It is a freedom that was hard fought and won in Europe and North America, and one for which many around the world continue to struggle. Advocacy of press freedom within the Western tradition began in the late sev- enteenth and early eighteenth centuries. The invention of the printing press in the fifteenth century is significant to the claim to such a right. It was not long before the printing press infiltrated much of Western Europe. Despite the embryonic nature of the new technology, the application and output of the early presses was formi- dable. By the end of the fifteenth century, it is estimated that there were around 15 to 20 million pamphlets and publications in circulation. This was an astounding achievement given that the population in these countries was fewer than 100 mil- lion and literacy rates were incredibly low (Thompson 1995). The invention of the press was to have a major impact on the political author- ity of the church and the absolutist monarchies. For as long as printed matter was reproduced manually by scribes, production times were slow and output low. This decelerated the transmission and dissemination of new ideas within society. How- ever, the creation of the printing press was quickly followed by the proliferation of printing firms and outlets capable of mass production. In the process it made it increasingly difficult for the church and the political rulers to control the free flow of ideas and information within their respective societies. For the church, it meant that the people could now read the Bible for themselves and were no longer dependent on priests to interpret the scriptures. In the case of the monarchs, publi- cations overtly or implicitly critical of their rule became increasingly commonplace. Up until this time, the power of monarchs was challenged largely by brute force, not by new ideas (Thompson 1995). The monarchs responded to the new technology by seeking to control and suppress its use. In England, in particular, from the fifteenth century to the late CHAPTER ONE: THE llBERAL DEMOCRATIC TRADITION AND THE MEDIA i s seventeenth century, the state operated a highly repressive licensing system. There were explicit restrictions on the number of printing presses that could legally operate. Those who held a licence were subject to state censors; all printed mat- ter was inspected prior to distribution. Moreover, the British monarchy sought to consolidate its control over the production of printed material by dispensing favours and privileges to those who published state propaganda. Those willing to serve the state were often rewarded with lucrative monopoly printing rights (Wheeler 1997). licence >» a contractual arrangement between government and an individual or organisation that affords an individual or organisation the right to operate broadcasting services Attempts on the part of the British monarchy to control the press were vigor- ously resisted, especially among the emergent capitalist class-the bourgeoisie, a term often used in reference to the middle class. This new class was affluent and well educated, and resentful of the power and privilege of the monarchy and the aristocracy. They were opposed to the state's attempts to censor news and infor- mation, particularly when the sole purpose of the monarchy's strict system of regulation was intended to preserve and protect traditional power structures. The bourgeoisie agitated for press freedom, along with other political demands, such as fewer restrictions and greater participation in political life (Keane 1991). According to political theorist John Keane (1991), the earliest claims for press freedom relied on four different species of argument. These are the God defence, the natural rights claim, instrumentalism and the truth argument. The God defence, or the theological approach, criticised state censorship in the name of the God-given faculty of the individual to reason. The argument is associ- ated closely with an essay written in 1644 by British poet and polemicist John Milton entitled Areopagitica. Milton advanced two key arguments in support of his posi- tion. First, he criticised the repressive licensing restrictions imposed by the state on practical grounds. He believed that the system of press controls administered by the state was simply unworkable and unenforceable, and required the state to employ additional censors, giving rise to the likelihood of arbitrary decisions. Second, and perhaps more importantly, Milton's claims rested on spiritual considerations. He argued that a free press was needed to enable the love of God and the human spirit to flourish. Without it, he said, the exercise of the individual's freedom to think, to exercise discretion and to choose a Christian way of life was stifled. Moreover, '! I J&,&.JZQ. &. . .ur 61 MEDIA AND POLITICS Milton claimed that the censors were not infallible. It was his contention that God had blessed humankind with the gift of rationality, and hence the capacity to choose between right and wrong. He believed that individuals could only develop their true capacities by engaging contrary opinions and experiences (Keane 1991, p. 12). This, Milton claimed, was an essential part of the individual's spiritual development and growth, for 'God uses not to captivate under a perpetual childhood of prescription, but trusts us [sic] with the gift of reason' (Milton, quoted in Keane 1991 ). Beginning in the mid seventeenth century, a new type of argument, based on the notion of the rights of the individual, was advanced in favour of press free- doms. This argument was heavily influenced by the ideas of British philosopher John Locke (1689), but was applied specifically to the campaign to secure a free press by the likes of writer John Asgill (1712) and deist author Matthew Tindal (1704) (Keane 1991, p. B). The natural rights argument rested on the assertion that all men are essen- tially rational beings capable of making decisions and choices in their own best interests. Unlike Milton's God defence, the proponents of the natural rights argu- ment rejected any suggestion that press freedom should be advocated on religious grounds. Instead, they declared that the rights of man-the right to life, liberty and property-were inalienable, belonging to all people, not just monarchs. A free press was essential to enable the individual to achieve enlightenment and know- ledge, a condition that could only be achieved if ideas were able to flow freely within society (Keane 1991, pp. 14-15). In the nineteenth century, the argument in support of press freedom shifted to new ground. During this time, a more practical or instrumental defence of press freedoms became the raison d'etre rather than an argument predicated on either spiritual or moral considerations. This strand of thinking was propounded by the Utilitarians, a new generation ofliberals who believed that the claim to freedom and liberty owed less to natural eights than it did to the promotion of general happiness within society (Ball & Dagger 2004). The instrumental thesis is associated with the works of James Mill (Liberty ef the Press) and Jeremy Bentham (On the Liberty of the Press and P11blic Discussion). Both men argued that the role of the state is to produce the greatest happiness for the greatest number. The likelihood of such an outcome depended on the state and, more specifically, on the government, being subject to continuous oversight. Mill and Bentham believed that it was impossible to sustain a just and fair political sys- tem without the existence of a free press. The reason, they argued, is that government is always ruled by self-interest. \1Vhile periodic elections go part of the way towards CHAPTER ONE: THE LIBERAL DEMOCRATIC TRADITION AND THE MEDIA 17 checking governmental conduct, they are insufficient to guarantee prudent policy decisions by elected officials. A free press could mediate the worst excesses of gov- ernmental self-interest by publicising instances of governmental misconduct. Thus, the instrumentalists argued that the press was a critical part of the checks and bal- ances of government by 'helping to control the habitual self-preference of those who govern, expose their secretiveness and make them more inclined to serve and respect the governed' (Keane 1991, p. 16). The fourth species of argument in support of a free press was developed by John Stuart Mill, the protege of Bentham and Mill.]. S. Mill agreed that a free press could help to constrain government; however, he also believed that a free press was important for the advancement of truth. Keane (1991) refers to this as the truth argument. Mill advanced three reasons for a free press based on the claim of truth. The first is that one cannot be certain that any opinion that the government seeks to silence is indeed false-the government is not infallible, and by suppressing an alleged falsehood there is a risk that the truth itself would be denied. Incorrect ideas and opinions could be best contradicted by publicly exposing them. It is only through a robust and vigorous debate that truth can emerge. Basically, government censorship can result in the suppression of important truths. Second, even if it later transpires that an opinion is false, it does not preclude the possibility that it contains a grain of truth. Sometimes, Mill claimed, we have to be exposed to a number of competing arguments before we are able to properly ascertain the truth of a situation. In public affairs, truth necessitates 'combining and reconciling opposites'. Freedom from censorship, therefore, helps to engender a clearer understanding of the truth and to reach better decisions. Third, without free discussion, even truth will degenerate into dead dogma. Unless ideas are subject to constant questioning, they turn into prejudice, assumed to hold true for all time and applicable to every circumstance (Keane 1991, p. 19). The problem with this scenario, according to Mill, is that the 'deep slumber of decided opinions' overpowers the moral courage and dignity of the human mind. Thus, censorship encourages ideas and, by extension, humankind and the society in which they live, to stagnate. Contemporary justifications for an independent media Today, the God defence, the natural rights claim, the instrumentalist thesis and the truth argument are more commonly expressed in terms of three interrelated sets .a ,1¢),& :.at :;.:; ;a ll I MEDIA AND POLITICS of arguments: a watchdog role, the provision of information and facilitator of the public sphere. The concept of the media as a political watchdog has deep roots. Sometimes referred to as the 'fourth estate', a term that persists in modern vernacular, the media (press) have been conceived as a political institution that checks and moni- tors the actions of public officials in the public interest. Although the process by which the media achieved this status 'took different routes in different coun- tries' (Schultz 1994, p. 23), the fourth estate notion holds that the media will stand on guard over democracy, closely watching and evaluating the political decision makers. The definition of the media as watchdogs forms the basis of their claims for press freedoms, namely, the right to publish with freedom from prior restraint. fourth estate »> refers to the media, particularly print media, who act as a check on the power of the executive, parliament and the courts freedom from prior restraint »> the right to publish news and information without first having to obtain the government's permission to do so The second role ascribed to the media is that of information provider. The media are tasked with the responsibility of gathering news and information about events occurring within the domestic and international arenas, thereby enabling the public to glimpse events outside their immediate personal expe- riences. In the context of societies that value representative democracy and an educated and informed community, the role of the media as information sources is regarded as especially critical because citizens are required to make informed decisions about all aspects of their lives, including the choice of their elected officials. The third function of the media in modern society is that of facilitators of the public sphere. The idea of the public sphere was introduced in the 1960s by Jurgen Habermas (1989) to describe the emergence oflaws, places and media that facilitate public debate. Hitherto, such conversations could only take place in a private sphere. The public sphere permits the public to have unhindered conversations about ideas and governments, of which the media are a vital component. The media act as a conveyor belt that disseminates ideas and information and, in the process, enables the public, notwithstanding their geographical location, to engage in a dialogue with their elected officials, fellow citizens and, increasingly, people living on the other side CHAPTER ONE: THE LIBERAL DEMOCRATIC TRADITION AND THE MEDIA I !I of the globe. In this way, the media serve as a marketplace of ideas in which opinions can be debated, contested and ultimately shared. The liberal media systern in action The liberal tradition claims that in order for the media to serve the public interest, it must be organised in accordance with two essential rules. First, a critical distance between the media and the government must be secured through private media ownership (Curran 2000). The sector should be exclusively, if not predominantly, privately owned and self-regulating. Second, the media should be 'lightly regulated, subject only to libel and decency laws and the tenets of good taste and decency' (Wheeler 1997, p. 6). The level of official regulation should be minimal and only to prevent uncompetitive and/or predatory business practices and to maintain general standards. Such ideals have found expression in the organisation of the media through- out the world, proving particularly popular among the Anglo-American family of nations. But the liberal media system is only one of three broad models favoured by Western European democracies. The liberal media model exists alongside the polarised pluralist model, which is found largely among Mediterranean countries, and the democratic corporatist model, prevalent in northern European states. Each model is the product of particular historical, cultural and political forces (sec Table 1. 1) (Hallin & Mancini 2004). While the media systems in most Western states appear to be converging towards the liberal model, this is not to suggest that liberal media systems are homogenous. In every national setting in which the liberal media model is found, the system has been adapted to suit the local political, cultural, geographical and historical context. This has given rise to important differences in the ways in which states have organised their media systems. In some liberal democracies, such as the UK, there is a vibrant public broadcasting sector, whereas in others, such as the USA, it has been dominated by a strong private broadcasting sector. Nor are liberal media systems internally consistent. Different media are often subject to varying levels of governmental regulation. Whereas the newspaper sector has tradition- ally been lightly regulated, the broadcasting industry has been subject to extensive controls. Moreover, liberal media systems are not static structures. Media systems shift in response to broader societal and global forces, as well as to innovations in media technologies (Hallin & Mancini 2004). I :lj Ir·' 1f ,11 II [! 10 I MEDIA ANO POLITICS Table 1,1 j Hallin and Mancini's three media models Polarised plurallst Democratic liberal model model corporatist model f:j)~vi!lopment of the . Newspaper N~wspaper Medium levels of I c:69l1niercial media · circulation low, drculation high, mass newspaper circulation (:';'! ,,, ' combined with circufation press With the early [ •,<.-". an elite politically developing early., .· development of mass. Lit orientated press. press, Political parallelism High political High levels of external low levels of external parallelism and pluralism in national pluralism; dominance external pluralism, press, increased shift of commercial press; commentary style away from party press fact discourse form of reporting and high to commercial press, journalism; formally levels of government and a government- independent public control over the controlled public broadcaster. activities of the public broadcaster with broadcasting sector. autonomy. : Professionallsation ,Weak St,rong Strong t professionaJjsation profession91isation prof~ssionalisati~n with less developed and institutionalised and non- .' and distinct standards self-regulation. institutionalised of professiona I self-regulation, pra.ctice. Role of the state Strong state Strong state Weaker state intervention. intervention but weak Intervention, with press freedoms. an emphasis on regulation via market forces. Source: Adapted from Hallin and Mancini 20D4 Despite these general qualifications, liberal media systems share certain under- lying characteristics in common. Such systems are typically defined by the early development of the commercial mass circulation press (as against the partisan press), often in the face of initial resistance from the state. The notion of journalis- tic professionalism and independence is well developed, with a clear emphasis on a fact-centred discourse as against commentary style reportage. Further, iournalists are subject to non-institutionalised self-regulation, with the sector relying on peer culture and the rules and norms of the media organisation for which they work. Liberal systems are also associated with a small public broadcasting sector, which has been purposively designed so as to operate mostly free from direct forms of government control and interference. Lastly, there is a presumption of limited state CHAPTER ONE: THE LIBERAL DEMOCRATIC TRADITION AND THE MEDIA ! 11 intervention in the media, with a preference for reliance on market forces to guide the development of the sector (Hallin & Mancini 2004, pp. 198-242). Liberal principles, along with a host of other political and social institutions, were imported into Australia from the UK at the time of white settlement in 1788. While the concept of freedom from prior restraint had been secured in the UK prior to Australia's colonisation, these values did not find easy acceptance in Australia. For many years, the governors put in charge of the country's colonies refused to allow newspapers to publish without their approval. However, the introduction of a new charter of justice in the Sydney colony enabled the press to eventually free itself from the strict pre-publication censorship regime imposed by the colonial gover- nors (Lloyd 1996b, pp. 10-14). By the 1820s, the doctrine of freedom from prior restraint was accepted, even if resented, by the governmental authorities. Today, the commitment to this principle remains salient, although it has not been codified in any of the Australian constitutions. The other important expression of the liberal ethos in Australia has been the dominance of the private sector in the supply of media services. As in the UK, government authorities rejected the practice of owning newspapers, relying instead on the private sector to supply these services. But the emergence of telegraphic services, and later the broadcasting media (initially, radio and later television), did result in a retreat from this position. Up until the late 1980s, telecommunications services were provided as a public monopoly, while in the 1930s, a public broad- caster was established alongside the private broadcasting sector. public monopoly »> services owned and supplied exclusively by the state Debates and Controversies: Criticisms of the liberal media model Although liberal values have found broad acceptance in countries such as Australia, the resulting media systems that liberal ideals have helped to shape have not been without their critics. Some of the more familiar criticisms levelled against the liberal media tradition arc explored below. Liberal values in the real world Translating liberal political principles and values into workable institutions and systems that can be applied to a real world setting has not been without significant challenges for policy makers. While many liberal aspirations, such as the notion I. ii II t)I ,t\l 111 1 \l\i ii\[ 1\!\ 12 I MEDIA AND POLITICS of personal freedom and liberty, are intuitively appealing, they are intrinsically difficult norms to institutionalise. This is particularly true in relation to the rightful role of the state in the affairs of the media. Liberals recognise that the government performs an important function in main- taining a productive and orderly society. In the case of the media, liberals believe that the state should play a role in ensuring that the channels of communication remain open. There are normally three situations in which government intervention in the activities of the media is considered necessary and desirable. First, liberals advocate that restrictions should exist on what can be said and shown in the inter- ests of protecting an individual's reputation, physical safety and property. Speech or material that is violent or pornographic or that incites violence should be pro- hibited. Second, constraints on the media should be imposed in the interests of national security. Liberals believe that the state has a responsibility to protect its citizens from foreign aggressors. It is for this reason that liberals support general restrictions on media access to important meetings of the state, such as cabinet meetings and high level military briefings. Third, liberals acknowledge the neces- sity for some limitations on the activities of media corporations. Government, they contend, should act to prevent the formation of media monopolies and to thwart other uncompetitive business practices that can arise if the market is left entirely to its own devices. At first glance, the circumstances under which liberals would support an inter- ventionist role for the state in the affairs of the media seem fairly unambiguous. In practice, however, striking the right balance is very difficult. There are two key stumbling blocks. First, although liberals tend to agree on the broad sets of condi- tions under which it is acceptable for the state to intercede in the public interest, there is far less consensus about exactly when it should act, or even how far it should be permitted to go when it does intervene. Second, while liberalism is a powerful organising political principle in nations such as Australia, it does not operate in a vacuum. Liberal values and institutions exist alongside other important political traditions, such as democracy and nationalism. Liberalism's relationship to other political values is neither natural nor always harmonious. For example, liberal- ism's stress on individual rights and limited government often conflicts with the more collectivist or majoritarian tendencies associated with the democratic notion (Parkin 2010, pp. 9-10). It falls to policy makers to reconcile these tensions. Government must balance the different and sometimes competing categories of rights that liberals aver, while also negotiating the grey areas between its obligations to protect individual rights CHAPTER ONE:THE LIBERAL DEMOCRATIC TRADITION AND THE MEDIA Ju and freedoms and its democratic duty to regulate interaction between its citizens and their safety. Take, for example, the issue of national security. It is a generally accepted liberal notion that the media should not report on matters that might imperil the security of the nation. However, it is not always dear when the national interest should take precedence over the right of citizens to be apprised of cer- tain activities undertaken by the state. In 2010, it was revealed by WikiLeaks that Kevin Rudd, then prime minister of Australia, had advised the US administra- tion that it must be prepared to use force if China was unwilling to be integrated peacefully into the international community. Some argued that the release of the cable was in the national interest because it exposed the hypocrisy of the Australian government's stated position on its relationship with China. Others claimed that the publication of Rudd's private communications with the US Secretary of State would severely compromise Australia's already testy relationship with one of its most important and influential regional trading neighbours, not to mention under- mine the sanctity of confidential diplomatic exchanges between nation states. Balancing the various rights that liberalism deems important often requires trade-offs and compromises to be made that may occasionally prove incompatible with other political values, let alone other liberal values. Protecting the right to human security oftentimes means that other rights, such as the right to know what steps the state is taking to secure this end, may have to be sacrificed. In the real world of practical politics, liberal aspirations are at best achieved imperfectly and rarely without contestation. Wlkileaks »> an online not-for-profit media organisation launched in 2007 that publishes confidential and classified documents; WikiLeaks serves as an electronic drop box to enable informants to disclose information to Journalists Market failure and the advent of media oligopolies A core liberal contention is that market forces, as against governmental inter- vention, offer the best hope of producing a media sector that is robust, pluralistic and diverse. Not only is the market regarded as a disinterested regulator but it is also seen to naturally promote efficiency, responsiveness and innovation (Croteau & Hoynes 2001). The conditions of diversity are thought to be best secured through the presence of a number of independently owned media outlets in active competition for audience share. Healthy rivalry among media firms is a critical component of the liberal model, as is the right of individuals to shift their custom 141 MEDIA AND POLITICS from one firm to another if dissatisfied with the service that is provided. If the power of the customer is in some way restricted due to the absence of choice, then the influence of the audience is diminished as a result (Curran 2005, p. 131). Yet one of the characteristics of the media sector in most liberal democracies is that consumer choice is often limited due to the concentrated nature of media ownership (see, for example, Baker 2007). Both the causes and consequences of media ownership concentration are con- tested. Some scholars deny the existence of a problem, claiming that a plurality of owners does not automatically guarantee a diversity of opinion within the media (see Compaine 2005). Others view the situation as a failure of over-regulation, that is, media concentration is the perverse consequence of excessive meddling by government in the affairs of the market. In contrast, some authors argue that the problem of concentrated media ownership results from an over-confidence in mar- ket forces to naturally restrain uncompetitive practices by media owners. Croteau and Hoynes (2001) contend that policy makers' appetite for media deregulation, since the 1980s especially, has produced a fundamental structural change to media firms. Not only has the size of the modern media firm increased significantly, but owners have also sought to maximise their monetary return and position within the marketplace through processes of vertical (owning different stages of the produc- tion and distribution of media) and horizontal (owning multiple types of media) integration. As media firms have grown in size, scope and scale, they have been better able to block new competitors and/or buy out new and extant firms, thereby reducing competition and consumer choice. deregulation >» the removal (in part or wholly) of government controls over an industry, ostensibly in the interests of improving the economic and productive efficiency of the industry in question McChesney argues that the intensification in levels of media concentration is not simply a national phenomenon but also a global occurrence in which media corporate giants are now establishing joint equity ventures in order to 'reduce competition and risk and increase their chance of profaability' (2001, p. 10). He argues that many media systems are beginning to transition from a domestically owned local industry to a global media market. Moreover, the dominant global oligopolies, he points out, are typically US firms that are 'moving across the planet at breakneck speeds' (2001, pp. 2-3). McChesney suggests that the increase in the levels of coordination among media firms not only affects their economic activities CHAPTER ONE: THE LIBERAL DEMOCRATIC TRADITION AND THE MEDIA [ 1 s but also significantly increases their ability to 'lobby governments at the national, regional and global levels' (2001, p. 11). Quite apart from its implications for con- sumer choice and control, some scholars have argued that media concentration, irrespective of whether it occurs at the local or global level, undermines the 'demo- cratic distribution of communicative power' and dilutes the 'democratic safeguard' that is likely to be attained through a dispersal of media ownership (Baker 2007). Private media, market sales and quality Explicit in liberal discourse is the view that the only arrangement that will promote a diversity of views and opinions and check officialdom is privately owned media. Liberals mostly justify the caH for media freedom on the grounds that an uninhibited fl.ow of information is necessary to keep government accountable between elections. As a result, privately owned media are positioned by liberals as 'virtuous institutions that serve the public interest by seeking out truth and exposing mendacity' (Tiffen 2004). Some scholars claim that this logic is somewhat tenuous, largely because liberal ideals pay only limited attention to the relationship between private ownership and its likely effects on the selection, quality and choice of media content. James Curran notes that the media in liberal systems allocate very little of their time to news and current affairs. Most commercial media content is geared to light infotainment, not to the disclos~re of news and information. According to Curran, the competitive pressure to maximise sales and audience reach, and hence profitability, causes media owners to reduce the quotient of public affairs stories in favour of more 'popular human interest content'. He suggests that human interest stories, while appealing to audiences, do not serve any substantial educative benefit or help to promote an enlightened and critical public. Rather, 'market orientated media' actually under- mine 'intelligent and rational debate' because they create content that is 'simplified, personalised and decontextualised, with an emphasis on action rather than process, visualisation rather than abstraction, stereotypicality rather than human complexity' (Curran 2005, pp. 129-30). For Curran, the problem with this picture is that 'the liberal orthodoxy defines the main democratic purpose and organisational principle of the media in terms of what they do not do most of the time' (Curran 2000, p. 122). The private media have been accorded a claim to special freedoms that other industries are not entitled to, and which most members of society are all but denied due to the prohibitive costs associated with media ownership. Curran points out that one of the great ironies of the present system is that 'successful public broadcasting systems It 161 MEDIA AND POLITICS (i.e. government owned) come closest to embodying the liberal ideal of informed, rational and inclusive debate' (2005, p. 130). Certainly, in the Australian context, many seeking quality current affairs rely on the government-owned media enter- prises, such as the ABC, rather than the privately owned commercial broadcasters. This begs an important question: if the commercial media are not adequately per- forming the task envisaged by liberals, do the media have a legitimate claim to the extensive freedom that liberals propose? Private power and its reach Some writers challenge the relevance of liberal strictures to the contemporary media age. The changing realities of media production, ownership and control are argued to have weakened many of the core assumptions on which the liberal media model is constructed. The liberal media tradition was consolidated in an era when the system of media ownership was comprised of small (family run) businesses with limited assets. However, as a number of scholars point out, the modern media sector bears little resemblance to this earlier reality (Curran 2005; Murdock & Golding 2005; Tiffen 2006). Much of the world's media are increasingly controlled by major industrial and commercial corporations, such as General Electric and Toshiba, while others have grown into huge leisure conglomerates that are among the largest companies in the world (Hague & Harrop 2004, p. 94). According to PriceWaterhouseCoopers revenues for the global media and entertainment industry are estimated to be worth $2.2 trillion by 2012 (Murdock & Golding 2008). The media are big business. While the increased scale and size of the sector is of concern to many scholars and others, it is the industry's growing ties to the commercial world that are con- sidered especially problematic. Curran contends that the 'growing enmeshment of the media with corporate interests' significantly increases the likelihood that there will be 'no go areas where journalists are reluctant to tread for fear of stepping on the corporate toes of a parent or sister company' (2000, p. 123). One does not need to look too hard to find examples of the complex structure of the modern media firm. General Electric (GE), for example, is a global finance and infrastructure company and one of the world's largest military contractors; it had earnings of $11.2 billion in 2009. It is also one of the big six media companies in the USA, with significant holdings in US television and cable channels and an 80 per cent share of NBC Universal films. The diverse nature of GE's holdings is such that it raises con- cerns that its various media firms may be Jess than eager to pursue an investigation into one of various enterprises in which GE has a pecuniary interest. CHAPTER ONE: THE LIBERAL DEMOCRATIC TRADITION AND THE MEDIA ! 11 Tiffen argues that this situation has been allowed to flourish because liberals have devoted much of their intellectual energies to 'criticising those forces which restrict press freedoms rather than prescribing those which enhance it' (2006, p. 204). The preoccupation with the ills of governmental power has resulted in an 'undeveloped' institutional foundation which relies principally on appeals to 'civic responsibility' and other voluntary mechanisms as the best means of curtailing the activities and behaviours of the media' (2004, p. 201). This has ultimately produced the failure on the part of the liberal tradition to develop sufficient mechanisms and institutions to counter the worst aspects of private commercial power. One of the best known critiques of the liberal media tradition is Edward S Herman and Noam Chomsky's propaganda model. Herman and Chomsky argue that 'the media serve, and propagandise on behalf of, the powerful interests that control and finance them'. They claim that there is no genuine 'marketplace of ideas' in which ideas can be raised, challenged and debated. Instead, the liberal media 'mobilise an elite consensus, to give the appearance of democratic consent, and to create enough confusion, misunderstanding and apathy in the general public to allow elite programs to go forward' (Herman 2003, p. 63). However, Herman and Chomsky do not believe that the media and its owners accomplish this goal by crude, heavy-handed intervention. Rather, they suggest that the production of propaganda occurs 'by the selection of right thinking personnel and by the editors' and work journalists' internalisation of priorities and definitions of news worthiness that conform to the institution's policy' (2002, p. i). The propaganda model is built on five essential ingredients. These five ingredients, which they refer to as filters, are structural conditions built Into the fabric of capitalist society. Her- man and Chomsky (2002) suggest that It Is the underlying imperatives that inform the filters that generate much of the distortions that occur in liberal media systems. The filters serve as the lenses or prism through which all information is passed, and through which information is ultimately processed. News in capitalist societies is strained through several .filters that Interact with and reinforce one another. Size, ownership and profit orientation of the mass media The first filter is perhaps one of the most influentlal. Herman and Chomsky show that one of the features of private media ownership is its propensity to high levels of concentrated ownership. The capital costs associated with setting up a large scale media enterprise with national audi- ence reach requires a significant financial investment to remain profitable and viable. The high costs of market entry has served to place ownership outside the reach of most people, while also threatening the survival of smaller, local extant concerns. Herman and Chomsky suggest that governments in the USA, enamoured with the neoliberal mantra of less regulation and more market freedom, have been actively deregulating all sectors of the economy, permitting mergers and acquisitions to proceed without much opposition or concern about social and political consequences. (continued) I ,1 r !i 181 MEDIA AND POLITICS Reliance of advertising as the media's primary income source Herman and Chomsky suggest that the shift from the basis of the profitability of a media enterprise from the sale of content to consumers to one dependent on advertising revenue has affected the logic of the liberal system to a significant measure. They suggest that media firms rarely vie for the patronage of the audience, but for the attention of advertisers, who-in effect-'provide the media subsidy'. As a result, the final buyer of media (the consumer) is no longer the direct decider of the media's fate; rather, it is advertisers who ultimately determine how influential and prosperous a media firm is. Issue of sourcing information The third filter is sourcing mass media news. Herman and Chomsky claim that the media are drawn into a symbiotic relationship with power sources of information as a result of two key conditions of the modern system. First, official sources are an economic necessity in light of high costs associated with gathering information. Second, there is a high level of reciprocity of interests between the media and official sources. There are, these authors claim, a number of factors that help facilitate this relationship: official sources are often reliable and willing participants, official sources have the added advantage of being recognisable and credible due to their status and prestige, and official sources generally do not require careful cross- checking and can be assumed by the media to be accurate. The use of flak to punish the media Flak refers to threats to media; these may be implicit or explicit. Flak is considered especially insidious when its effects are not known or played out in the public domain. Herman and Chomsky suggest that media organisations-and the journalists who work for them-may take preemptive action and self-censor in order to avoid flak. One of the reasons flak is so effective is because Ii rms rely heavily on advertising sponsorship. Anticommunism as a national religion and control mechanism The final filter is any form of dominant ideology that can be used to galvanise the citizenry in a common c.iuse and against a common enemy. It becomes the dominant discourse/prism through which opposing points of view are ultimately assessed. In their early formulation of the propaganda model, Herman and Chomsky proposed that anticommunist ideology operated as the dominant Ideology. They suggest that over time, and since the end of the Cold War, this has been variously replaced by either terrorism or neollberal free market Ideology. Herman and Chomsky daim that they do not believe there is anything inherently conspiratorial about the way the liberal media operate, only that it is the very structure of the context in which they exist that explains what they do. Would you agree with Herman and Chomsky's assessment of the underlying forces that drive the modern media system? It would seem that many of the values and ideals that inform the liberal media tradition are sometimes difficult to apply in a real world setting. A truly free and open media, as envisaged by liberals, is unattainable in a world where real politics rules. Nor are liberal principles necessarily always desirable. This should not be taken to mean that liberal ideals are unimportant or CHAPTER ONE: THE LIBERAL DEMOCRATIC TRADITION AND THE MEDIA j 19 redundant. This is far from true. The liberal media tradition continues to make an important contribution to the form and style of the Australian media, fostering a sector that is able to fulfil many of the important roles that a healthy democracy requires. Whatever its failings, the liberal model provides the standard against which other media models are judged, and against which we ultimately evaluate the efficacy of our media system. 1 What has been the impact ofliberal principles on the form of the Australian media? Do you think liberal values have had a beneficial impact on the structure and opera- tions of the media in Australia? 2 How important are the media In Australian society and what do you regard as their most significant function/s? Does the Australian media sector meet the expectations set for it by liberals? 3 Are liberals correct in the view that government poses the greatest threat to the diversity and plurality of the media? WEBSITE Ketupa.net is a resource on media industries developed by Caslon Analytics, an Australian-based research consultancy firm (http://ketupa.net/about.htm). FURTHER READING Hallin, D. & Mancini, P. 2004, CoJJ1pari11g Media S)'Ste,m, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Keane, J. 1991, The Media 011d De1J1ocracy, London: Polity Press.