Still working to recover. Please don't edit quite yet.

Media freedom

From Anarchopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Media Freedom (also Concepts of Press Freedom) is an object of study within media system research. Discussions of media freedom are deeply rooted in political science and mass communication literature.[1] In practice, media freedom is a human right enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference, and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers."[2] (Article 19)

In the context of economic liberalization and the emergence of a free market in Britain concepts of media freedom were developed. Independent information was seen as a necessary condition for free trade. But concepts of media freedom understand media freedom not only as freedom from (e.g. government control), but also as freedom to (e.g. report, convey).[3] Concepts of media freedom are a normative framework examining media freedom from different perspectives. Media freedom consists of three main conditions:

(1) Media Independence
(2) Free Access to Media
(3) Freedom of Expression

These conditions are the crucial structural aspects for an effective media freedom[4], and can be analysed from the institutional, the citizens’ and the professional perspective.

This article contains content from Wikipedia
An article on this subject has been nominated for deletion on Wikipedia:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/
Concepts of Media Freedom
Current versions of the GNU FDL article on WP may contain information useful to the improvement of this article 		WP+
NO
DEL

Conditions and Perspectives of Media Freedom[edit]

Media Independence[edit]

Conventionally, media freedom is understood as freedom from government control. According to Wikipedia:Denis McQuail, media independence is “a feature of real independence from excessive control and interference by state, is beyond political or economic interests.”[5] This definition of media independence describes media freedom on the institutional level.
In their classic work Four Theories of the Press, Siebert, Petersen and Schramm (1956) identify four models or theoretical types of media[6]: In the authoritarian model the government controls the press through censorship and punishment after publication.The Soviet Communist model is only a further development of the much older authoritarian type. In the libertarian theory the press is not an instrument of government, but rather a device for presenting evidence and arguments,[7] so the libertarian model is seen as the counterpoint of the authoritarian model. The fourth model, the so-called social responsibility theory,[8]states that media have obligations to society (e.g. act like the Wikipedia:Fourth Estate, enlighten the public, enable the public to express their views).
According to Lowenstein (1970), a completely free press is one in which media have absolute independence and critical ability. The press has no concentrated ownership, but is rather self-regulated.[9]
Weaver (1977) also mentioned the independence of media as an important aspect. He distinguished three components of press freedom: the relative absence of government restraints on the media, the relative absence of non-governmental restraints, and the existence of conditions to ensure the dissemination of diverse ideas and opinions to large audiences.[10]
In summary, media independence can be described by the absence of censorship, licensing or other controls by the government, allowing for an unhindered right to publish and the dissemination of news and opinions.[11]

Free Access to Media[edit]

Freedom from government control alone does not guarantee the free exchange of information.[12] Another condition of media freedom is free access to media channels and content by everyone, representing a Wikipedia:citizens’ perspective.
According to McQuail, "the concept of media freedom includes the degree of freedom enjoyed by the media and the degree of freedom of the access of citizens to media content."[13] This leads to the question, ‘who receives access to which channels’? The answer depends on the number of independent media channels which are available in a media system.[14] In an independent media system, unlimited access to these channels is necessary to receive diverse kinds of information.
Thereby the principle of diversity stands very close to the concept of free media access.[15] Diversity of media channels and diversity of media content are identified as major benefits of media freedom: the more channels and the more differentiated they are, the more diversity. Opening the way for social and cultural change and giving access to new, powerless voices are important aspects of the principle of diversity.[16]
Free media access should be an equal right, providing the possibility for citizens to have access to channels of expression and publication.[17]
For instance, in Wikipedia:Jordan, the existence of Wikipedia:Al Jazeera substantially influences the information content. Citizens perceive their rather controlled domestic press more neutral, because they have access to diverse transnational press.[18]

Freedom of Expression[edit]

The third condition for media freedom is freedom of expression. This term refers to freedom of expression for professionals (e.g. journalists) and citizens, and is therefore taking on a professional and citizens’ perspective.
In the history of the press, the pursuit of freedom of expression and publication has been intimately connected with democracy.[19] It is essential to distinguish between freedom of the press and freedom of expression. The latter refers to the content of what is communicated (opinions, ideas, information, art etc.) whereas freedom of the press refers to the main topic.[20]
Breunig (1994) also distinguishes between press freedom and freedom of communication. In his opinion, press freedom is one type of freedom of communication. Other types are freedom of speech, freedom of opinion and freedom of information – subcategories of freedom of expression.[21]
Thus, Becker and Vlad summerize freedom of expression as follows: "In this view, independent media also allow individuals to find a public forum in which to express opinions, beliefs and viewpoints to their fellow citizens and they inform, entertain and enrich the lives of the citizens through the profusion of ideas, opinions and visions. Free and independent media also provide a platform for an expression of opinions so that meaningful decisions can be made to guarantee access to the less privileged in society, giving them a voice."[22]

Dimensions of Media Freedom[edit]

Dimensions of Media Freedom


Negative and Positive Press Freedom[edit]

Government control is a contentious issue in the debate of media freedom. Here, the theorists John Merrill and Wikipedia:Robert G. Picard are opposing each other.
Picard offered an additional theory to those presented in Four Theories of the Press.[23] He distinguishes between negative and positive press freedom. Negative press freedom is characterized by the "absence of legal and political prohibitions, the absence of censorship and of institutions denying average citizens the opportunity of printing and diffusing their opinions." Positive freedom of the press refers to "the effective material capacity of individuals to have their opinions printed and circulated."[24] He demands a positive press freedom, under which the government would intervene in media economics to ensure the freedom of expression.
This must be seen in contrast to the traditional liberal concept of media freedom, suggesting that a free press is able to strengthen the process of democratization and human development in its watchdog role. [25] Piccard assumes that the number of newspapers has declined to a point which leads to complexity and confusion so that active participation in a democratic society is in danger. Therefore government intervention has become necessary.[26] In his opinion, positive press freedom supports conditions that allow an independent exchange of ideas.[27]
For Merrill (Imperative of Freedom, 1974, media freedom has to be based on autonomy, not on regulation.[28] He particularly criticized social responsibility theory and related notions of people’s right to know, the right of access to the media, and the press as the fourth branch of government. In collaboration with Lowenstein he elaborated press philosophies into four types: authoritarian with negative government controls, social-centralist with positive government controls, libertarian without any government controls and social libertarian with minimal government controls(1979, 186).[29]
In 2008, Joseph Russomanno underlined the positive perspective of press freedom, which is practised in many nations in Wikipedia:Europe, Wikipedia:Asia, Wikipedia:Africa, and Wikipedia:Latin America. In this case, press freedom is actively promoted – for example through regulations that enable the press to attain its goals.[30]

Media Freedom and Democracy[edit]

In its simplest terms, press freedom has been viewed as a characteristic of the nation state, linked to the ideas of democratization, extension of civil liberties and government transparency.[31] Definitions of media freedom assume that media freedom is an essential component of democracy.
Liberal theorists from Wikipedia:John Locke to Wikipedia:John Stuart Mill assert that a free and independent press plays a vital role in the process of democratization.[32] In general, media have the following normative functions, reflecting varying aspects of democratic practice:

  • to be the main source of information
  • to serve as a Wikipedia:watchdog
  • to prevent misuse
  • to provide a forum for exchange of opinion and criticism[33]

Therefore, media freedom also plays an important political role. A transformation from more authoritarian societies to more democratic ones is possible.
Beata Rozumilowicz (2002) also argued that a media structure that is free of interference from government, business or dominant social groups is better able to support the elements that define democracy.[34]
These assumptions are scientifically proven by many studies which attempted to measure the indicators of press freedom. The aim was it to find out which indicators have a relationship to press freedom.
The study of Wikipedia:Pippa Norris and Dieter Zinnbauer (2002), which compared 135 countries, suggested that free and independent mass media have a positive impact on democratization and human development. The results confirm that the indicators for good government are strongly and significantly related to media access and press freedom. Countries where the public has access to a free press have a greater political stability, rule of law, government efficiency and less corruption.[35] Thus, media freedom can assumed to be a constituent of democracy.

Limitations of the Concepts of Media Freedom[edit]

These conditions of media freedom leave many issues unresolved. There are several conflicts embedded in these requirements:

  • Media freedom can never be unrestricted. An absolute fulfillment of the normative functions is impossible. Merely, a country can approach to these conditions. The closer a country approaches these conditions the higher its degree of media freedom.
  • The conditions are often not related to each other. In China, for example, despite controls, filters and censorship, there is a vibrant and pervasive usage of the Internet.[36]
  • Positive and negative concepts of media freedom may contradict each other and as a consequence, require different regulation policies. Press subsidies for example, oppose freedom from state intervention. Although newspapers in Finland receive state subsidies Finland has a high ranking in the Wikipedia:Freedom House measures of press freedom every year.[37]
  • But it is also frequently the case that even media that are independent from direct government control are tightly controlled and owned, by individuals and entities connected to government figures.
  • Private interests of actors in the media landscape can also be a limitation.
  • There can be conflicts with owners of media channels, which do not recognize the right of freedom of expression of those who work in the media(journalist, producers etc.).[38]
  • Concepts of media freedom are mainly rooted in the Western tradition. Nations all over the word have a different understanding of media freedom. In strongly religious-orientated states, the media almost voluntarily make a taboo out of numerous topics and events.[39]

See also[edit]

Notes[edit]

  1. ↑ cf. Becker & Vlad, 2011, p.24.
  2. ↑ Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 19.
  3. ↑ cf. Czepek, 2009, p.40.
  4. ↑ cf. McQuail, 2010, p.193.
  5. ↑ McQuail, 2010, p.193.
  6. ↑ Siebert, Petersen & Schramm, 1963, p.2.
  7. ↑ cf. Siebert, Petersen & Schramm, 1963, p.3.
  8. ↑ cf. Siebert, Petersen & Schramm, 1963, p.4.
  9. ↑ cf. Lowenstein, 1970, pp.129-142.
  10. ↑ cf. Weaver, 1977, pp.152-177.
  11. ↑ cf. McQuail, 2010, p.193.
  12. ↑ Czepek, 2009, pp.37.
  13. ↑ Becker & Vlad, 2011, p.25.
  14. ↑ cf. McQuail, 1999, p.171.
  15. ↑ cf. McQuail, 2010, p.197.
  16. ↑ cf. McQuail, 2010, pp.196-197.
  17. ↑ cf. McQuail, 2010, p.193.
  18. ↑ cf. Price, 2011, p.10.
  19. ↑ cf. McQuai, 2010, p.192.
  20. ↑ cf. McQuail, 2010, p.193.
  21. ↑ cf. Breunig, 1994.
  22. ↑ Becker & Vlad, 2011, p.26.
  23. ↑ cf. Soderlund & Hildebrandt, 2005, p.9.
  24. ↑ Picard, 1985, p.43.
  25. ↑ cf. Norris, 2004, p.122.
  26. ↑ cf. Picard, 1985, p.17.
  27. ↑ cf. picard, 1985, p.48.
  28. ↑ cf. Soderlund & Hildebrandt, 2005, p.8.
  29. ↑ cf. Christians et al., 2009, p.6.
  30. ↑ cf. Russomanno, 2008.
  31. ↑ Becker & Vlad, 2011, p.23.
  32. ↑ Norris, 2002, p.117.
  33. ↑ Voltmer, 2008.
  34. ↑ cf. Rozumilowicz, 2002, pp.9-26.
  35. ↑ cf. Norris, 2002, p.128.
  36. ↑ cf. Price, 2011, p.10.
  37. ↑ cf. Holtz-Bacha, 2011, p.130.
  38. ↑ McQuail, 2010, p.194.
  39. ↑ cf. Behmer, 2009, pp.23-36.

References[edit]

  • Becker, L.B, & Vlad, T. (2011): The Conceptualization and Operationalization of Country-Level Measures of Media Freedom. In S. Abbott, L. Morgan, & M. E. Price (Eds.), Measures of Press Freedom and media contributions to development. Evaluating the evaluators (pp. 24-40). New York: Peter Lang
  • Behmer, M. (2009): Measuring Media Freedom: Approach of International Comparison. In Czepek, A., Hellwig M., &Nowak, E., Press Freedom and Pluralism in Europe. Concepts & Conditions. Malta: Gutenberg Press.
  • Breunig, C. (1994). Communication freedoms: An international comparison. Konstanz: Universitätsvergleich. Konstanz.
  • Christians, C.G., Glassner, T.L., McQuail, D., Nordenstreng, K., & White, R.A. (2009). Normative Theories of the Media. Journalism in Democratic Societies. (pp.6-14).University of Illinois.
  • Czepek, A. (2009). Pluralism and Participation as desired Results of Press Freedom: Measuring Media System Performance (pp.37-45). In Czepek, A., Hellwig M., &Nowak, E., Press Freedom and Pluralism in Europe. Concepts & Conditions. Malta: Gutenberg Press.
  • Holtz-Bacha, C. (2011): Freedom of the Press: Is a Worldwide Comparison possible and What is it Good For?. In S. Abbott, L. Morgan, & M. E. Price (Eds.), Measures of Press Freedom and media contributions to development. Evaluating the evaluators (pp. 129-142). New York: Peter Lang
  • Lowenstein, R. (1970). Press Freedom as a Political Indicator. In H.D. Fischer & J.C. Merrill (Eds.), International communication, media, channels, functions (pp.124-142). New York: Hastings House, Publisher.
  • McQuail, D. (1999): Media Performance. Mass Communication and the Public Interest. London: Sage Publications.
  • McQuail, D. (2003). Media Accountability and Freedom of Publication. Oxford Press: New York.
  • McQuail, D. (2010): Mass Communication Theory. London: Sage Publications.
  • Norris, P. (2004): Global Political Communication. Good Governance, Human Development, and Mass Communication. In E. Esser, & B. Pfetsch (Eds.), Comparing Political Communication. Theories, Cases, And Challenges (pp.115-150). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Picard, R.G. (1985): The Press and the Decline of Democracy. The Democratic Socialist Response in Public Policy. Connecticut: Greenwood Press.
  • Price, M. E. (2011): Press Freedom Measures: An Introduction. In S. Abbott, L. Morgan, & M. E. Price (Eds.), Measures of Press Freedom and media contributions to development. Evaluating the evaluators (pp.1-18). New York: Peter Lang.
  • Rozumilovicz, B. (2002). Democratic Change: A theoretical approach. In M.E. Price, B. Rozumilowicz & S.G. Verhulst (Eds.), Media reform: Democratizing the media, democratizing the state (pp.9-26). London: Routledge.
  • Siebert, F.S., Peterson, T., &Schramm, W. (1956). Four theories of the press: The authoritarian, libertarian, social responsibility, and Soviet communist concepts of what the press should be and done. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
  • Soderlund, W. C., Hildebrandt, K. (2005): Canadian Newspaper Ownership in the Era of Convergence. Rediscovering Social Responsibility. Alberta: The University of Alberta Press.
  • Weaver, D. (1977). The press and government restrictions: A corss-national study over time. Gazette, 23, 152-170.

External Links[edit]

Further Reading[edit]

  • Czepek, A., Hellwig, M., & Nowak (2009): Introduction: Structural Inhabition of Media Freedom and Plurality Across Europe. In (Eds.) Press Freedom and Pluralism in Europe. Concepts & Conditions. Malta: Gutenberg Press, pp.9-22.
  • Josephi, B. (2010): Introduction. In B. Josephi (Ed.), Journalismus Education in Countries with Limited Media Freedom. New York: Peter Lang, pp.1-9.
  • Leeson, P.T. (2008). Media Freeedom, Political Knowledge, and Participation. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 22 (2), 155-169.
  • Lichtenberg, J. (2002). Foundations and Limits of Freedom of the Press (pp.172-181). In D. McQuail, McQuail’s Reader in Mass Communication Theory. London: Sage Publications.
Retrieved from "http://eng.anarchopedia.org/index.php?title=Media_freedom&oldid=51856"