Mediatization
The Effect of Commercialization and Concentration
on the Public Interest
Roderick Verdonck Huffnagel Master Thesis Political Science
International Relations August 2014
Author: Roderick Verdonck Huffnagel
Student Number: 6156460
Research Project: The Political Economy of Trade and Investment: The Global Politics of Corporate Sectors
Supervisor: Professor Jeffrey Harrod
Index
Index ______________________________________________________________________________________ 2 Chapter 1: Introduction ________________________________________________________________ 4
1.1: Introduction to the topic _______________________________________________________________ 4 1.2: Problem Statement ______________________________________________________________________ 4 1.3: Research Aim_____________________________________________________________________________ 5 1.4: Research Question ______________________________________________________________________ 6 1.5: Methodology _____________________________________________________________________________ 6 1.6: Research Outline ________________________________________________________________________ 7
Chapter 2: History of Audiovisual Media in the European Union ________________ 8
2.1: History of European Audiovisual Broadcasting ____________________________________ 8
Chapter 3: Theoretical Framework, Concepts and Definitions ________________ 15
3.1: Introduction ____________________________________________________________________________ 15 3.2: Mediatization __________________________________________________________________________ 15 3.3: Public Interest _________________________________________________________________________ 23 3.4: Concepts and Definitions _____________________________________________________________ 32
Chapter 4: Audiovisual Media Policy in the European Union __________________ 40
4.1: Introduction ____________________________________________________________________________ 40 4.2: EU Policies since the 1980s __________________________________________________________ 40 4.3: Public Service Broadcasting _________________________________________________________ 44 4.4: Overview ________________________________________________________________________________ 46
Chapter 5: Case Study: The Netherlands ___________________________________________ 47
5.1: Introduction ____________________________________________________________________________ 47 5.2: The Dutch Media System _____________________________________________________________ 47 5.3: Pauw en Witteman versus RTL Late Night _________________________________________ 49 5.4: Conclusion ______________________________________________________________________________ 59
Chapter 6: Analyzing the Audiovisual Media State of Affairs ___________________ 61
6.1: Introduction ____________________________________________________________________________ 61 6.2: Mediatization __________________________________________________________________________ 61 6.3: Media Quality __________________________________________________________________________ 68 6.4: The Propaganda Model _______________________________________________________________ 72
Bibliography ___________________________________________________________________________ 78
Articles _______________________________________________________________________________________ 78 Book Chapters _______________________________________________________________________________ 80 Books _________________________________________________________________________________________ 82 Reports, Directives, Observatories ______________________________________________________ 82 Websites _____________________________________________________________________________________ 83 Broadcasts ___________________________________________________________________________________ 84 Interviews ___________________________________________________________________________________ 84
Appendix A _____________________________________________________________________________ 85
Chapter 1: Introduction
‘In short, the major media – particularly the elite media that set the agenda that others generally follow – are corporations “selling” privileged audiences to other businesses. It would hardly come as a surprise if the picture of the world they present were to reflect the perspectives and interests of the sellers, the buyers, and the product. Concentration of ownership of the media is high and increasing.’
(Noam Chomsky, 1989: p.18-19)
1.1: Introduction to the topic
This research is a sector study of the mass media industry. The development of this industry over the last decades has been significant, moving from a tool used by other institutions to an institution of its own, while still being used by others (Hjarvard, 2008: p.115-120). Even more: for institutions, companies and other political or economic actors, media is indispensible. Technological developments have made the media a dominant factor in everyday life, with many functions such as informing, educating, entertaining and facilitating debate (Holtz-Bacha and Norris, 2001: p.126-128; Silverblatt, 2004: p.39-41). The research will focus on the audiovisual industry, which will be investigated in regional perspective, analyzing its functioning in the European Union.
1.2: Problem Statement
The audiovisual media industry is a precarious sector that can be viewed from different perspectives. Its content is one of the most important factors that form our view on politics and society, amongst others (AP-MD, 2004: p.23). This formation of public opinion is an important condition for the functioning of democratic society. As Maier and Rittberger summarize: “It is obvious that the vast
majority of citizens have no first-hand experience of politics, whether domestic, European or international. Consequently, citizens rely on mass media to obtain information about political issues.” (Maier and Rittberger, 2008: p.247) Stanley
Ngoa supports this statement stressing that it is the media that is trusted with informing the public, enabling them to make valid judgements on issues of public interest. Besides, it is the media that is trusted with having a watchful eye on elected representatives (Ngoa, 2010: p.137-139). So, the media are trusted to form public opinion regarding public interest issues. For he specialization this thesis is written for, the important issues that especially matter are those regarding international politics- and relations. Yet this role the media is trusted with, has drastically changed due to multiple developments.
Before technological development made an infinite amount of channels possible, audiovisual media in Europe was controlled in a public manner. Since ideological, societal and technological developments made the entrance of private broadcasters possible, a lot has changed in the industry (CMPF, 2013: p.13-20; Holtz-Bacha and Norris: p.123-125). Where public broadcasters had the mission to serve the public interest (Council of Europe, 2006: p.36), commercial enterprises act according to the commercial model, where advertising is used to generate revenues. The programs are used as a mean to attract an audience to which products can be sold. Those programs with the highest ratings are most interesting for advertisers, so they are willing to pay the price (Tracey, 2001: p.12515). In this way, media and its content is becoming a product. The problem this research will address is whether this commercialization and concentration of the media is a threat to the public interest.
1.3: Research Aim
The aim is to investigate whether media commercialization and concentration has an effect on the provision of qualitative, plural media for European citizens. This qualitative media serves the public interest (UNESCO, 2014: p.2; EBS, 2013: p.3) and the question is if this provision is being threatened by the current market oriented audiovisual media industry. By investigating this, EU policies regarding the audiovisual media industries can be critically analyzed as to what extent they influence the industry, regarding the public interest, especially with regards to the political content- and consequently, the international relations between states.
This research focuses on the European Union as a region because the media industry does not have a globalized market with similar policies. The first variable is a region’s development, where developed regions have a more mediatized society than less developed ones (Hjarvard, 2008: p.107-110). Mediatization asks for a higher rate of legislation and policy making. A second variable concerning developed regions is the basis on which its broadcasting system is constructed. The system of Europe has public sector roots, where the United States as Western developed counterpart is based on commercial enterprises (Gomery, 2001: p.15583-15586). When focussing on one region and drawing conclusions out of it regarding commercialization, a general argument can be constructed and applied to less similar regions. Yet such an argument starts with one researched region and its characteristics.
1.4: Research Question
The goal of this research is to construct a general argument regarding commercialization of the audiovisual industry and the public interest. The research question to construct this argument is:
"To what extent does commercialization and concentration of the media industry determine the nature of the public interest of a region?”
1.5: Methodology
This thesis will be based on qualitative research. Conducting a literature study, a case study and interviews with experts regarding the media industry will shape the research. The analyzed literature will consist of primary and secondary sources. The secondary sources, consisting of books and academic are written by scholars from various fields of study including sociology, media studies and political science, amongst others. The primary sources consist of specialized reports from various institutions such as the European Union, UNESCO and
affiliate organizations. Besides these sources, an analysis of the Dutch media system, including a comparison between two late-night talk shows and their content in the two weeks before the European Elections of 2014 will be conducted.
1.6: Research Outline
Chapter 2 of this thesis provides an historic overview of audiovisual media in the European Union. Following the historic overview, the third chapter will discuss the theoretical framework and the definition of certain dominant concepts. To conduct this research, it is important to state clear definitions of concepts like the public interest and qualitative media, amongst others. The fourth chapter extensively discusses EU media policies and their development. In Chapter 5 a case study will be conducted. This case study consists of an analysis of the Dutch system as described in the previous paragraph. Before concluding the thesis in Chapter 7, in Chapter 6 the effects of commercialization and concentration regarding the public interest will be analyzed and discussed based on the state of the art regarding the audiovisual media industry and its policies, together with the findings of the case study.
Chapter 2: History of Audiovisual Media in the European Union
2.1: History of European Audiovisual Broadcasting
2.1.1: The early years of broadcasting in Europe
“With the notable exception of Luxembourg, where a commercial system has always been in place, the
history of broadcasting in Europe is rooted in an idea of public service. There is, however, not one theory or generally accepted notion of what public broadcasting services (PBS) stands for, and the variations in form according to national priorities and traditions are manifold. But even though there might be a different organizational structure and typical national programmes, that patchwork quilt we call the West European broadcasting system was, roughly until the 1980s, based on a belief that the programmes produced one way or the other had to be in the public interest”
(Brants and Bens, 2000: p.8)
Broadcasting was a monopoly; monopolized by public service broadcasters (PSBs) (Servaes and Wang, 1977: p.1). The function of these PSBs was to provide qualitative and divers content, for all people, including minorities. In European countries, first radio and later television was regarded as a public good. In contrast to the United States, where broadcasting was left to the free market from the beginning and therefore commercial (Gomery: p.15583-15584; Murdock, 2001: p.9360), in Europe broadcasting was needed to be available to all, under the same circumstances. There are multiple reasons for the choice of this type of media policy in Europe. First, there was a greater demand than supply of frequencies. It was considered fair and rational that the state was involved in this partitioning (Servaes and Wang: p.1; Brants and Bens: p.8). Second, after the German extensive use of radio propaganda during the Second World War, according to Brants and Bens, it was considered humanistic to involve protection from, and intervention by the state (Brants and Bens; p.8). Brants and Bens’ view is supported by Tracey who claims that those societies that needed to be rebuild after the war should consider broadcasting as a social process, rather than an economical one. A process where
moral, cultural and intellectual motives are considered of more importance than a broadcasting system where the focus mainly lies on pleasure and entertainment (Tracey: p.12515). A third and perhaps most important reason for the choice of public- over commercial broadcasting is that politicians recognised the impact and importance of the new medium from the beginning, at the same time recognising the importance of being involved and being able to manage the market (Brants and Bens: p.8).
Despite the fact that broadcasting was considered a public service in Europe, the relationships between politics and broadcasting differed in the European states: The United Kingdom, Ireland and Sweden had a system characterized by an autonomous system where a distance between politics and broadcasting policy was created. The Netherlands and Germany on the other hand, demonstrated a system that can be described as politics-in-broadcasting. In these countries representatives of the main political parties and their affiliated social groups were part of the governing board of the broadcasting organisations. In the southern European countries like France and Spain, state organs had an even greater influence because of their right to intervene in broadcaster decisions (Kelly, 1983 in Brants and Bens: p.9; Holtz-Bacha and Norris: p.123-124).
Although European countries had different forms of handling their broadcasting organisations, the parallels between their operations were more striking. The first characteristic that can be regarded similar, is that before the entrance of commercial broadcasters discussed in the next paragraph, European states applied an interventionist tradition, rather than an free-market economy one when handling and regulating media. Media and broadcasting policy were considered a central topic in the larger area of cultural policy, together with political issues strengthening national identities, language, culture and history. (Skogerbø, 2001: p.1347). Second, European television was characterized by ‘mandated, non-commercially driven organizations, publicly owned and funded, and
publicly accountable’ (Brants and Bens: p.9). At the beginning of public television
broadcasting, the main way of financing these broadcasters was also generally through licence fees paid by the population. Most countries did allow restricted advertising, yet the largest share of funding was by the public, with fees commonly collected by the authorities. Over the years, this advertisement grew. Yet the
revenue gained through this advertisement did not serve a commercial purpose, all money gained from these practices went into programming (Brants and Bens: p.12-13). Still, the largest part of public broadcaster’s revenue to this day, is through public fees and funding. The average for the European Union, analysed by the European Audiovisual Observatory through its 27 participants is 74,6 percent by public- and 24 percent by commercial revenues. These numbers differ between countries, yet the average does proof that public broadcasters are still depending on public revenues, for the largest part (European Audiovisual Observatory, 2013b: p.81). Although the largest part of PSB funding is through fees and public funding, the entrance of commercial broadcasters did put pressure on the fact that PSB also gain funding through advertisement, a pressure that will be further discussed in Chapter 4, 5 and 6. Before reaching those chapters, much needs to be discussed. Starting with the entrance of commercial broadcasters,
2.1.2: Entrance of commercial broadcasters
“Since the early 1980s there has been a dramatic restructuring of national media industries, along
with the emergence of a genuinely global commercial media market. The newly developing global media system is dominated by three or four dozen large transnational corporations (TNCs), with fewer than ten mostly US-based media conglomerates towering over the global market. In addition to the concentration of media power, the major feature of the global media order is its thoroughgoing commercialism, and an associated marked decline in the relative importance of public broadcasting and the applicability of public service standards. Such a concentration of media power in organizations dependant on advertising support and responsible primarily to shareholders is a clear and present danger to citizen’s participation in public affairs, understanding of public issues and thus to the effective working of democracy”
(Herman and McChesney, 1997: p.165)
Since the late 1960s, critique and pressure on the monopolistic character of European broadcasting arose. According to Servaes and Wang, three interrelated reasons were the main drive behind this pressure: ‘(a) the worldwide trend of
transnationalization; (b) economic (and nowadays also political) pressure towards commercialization; and (c) the diversification and multiplicity of hardware channels,
and their availability (to different public groups (either legally or illegally) at a relatively low cost.’ (Servaes and Wang, p.1) In the following decades, commercial
initiatives were set up. An example of such an initiative is the emergence of pirate radio stations, of whom most started as rapidly as they vanished.
It was not until the mid 1980s that commercial broadcasting effectively entered Europe (except for Luxembourg, where broadcasting has always had a commercial character). This is mainly due to the eroding of the media regulation framework in Europe (Holtz-Bacha and Norris: p.123-127). Because of other players entering the scene, the deregulation process set in motion had three elements, according to media scholar Stig Hjarvard. The first element is the break up of the public broadcasting monopoly. This breakup led to a competitive situation between public- and private broadcasters. The second element of deregulation is the different motive the commercial broadcasters entered the market with. Instead of the publics’ interest, these players operated according to market principles with advertisement as their source of income. A third element Hjarvard cites is the transnationalization of television, shown by the emergence of international commercial broadcasters, only changing the language yet sending the same message in different countries (Brants and Bens: p.34).
The deregulation of broadcasting in Europe did not happen overnight but was a part of broader, societal developments. According to Peter Dahlgren, deregulation had different explanations. The first explanation can be assigned as part of a large shift in the European political climate. Dahlgren presents a simplified development of European politics after the Second World War. After the war, states focussed on recovery and developing into a social welfare state. ‘Society
was dependant on an expansive economy, but this expansion was to be steered and channelled for the public good, not just for the profits of a few.’ (Dahlgren, 2000:
p.25) According to this rule, the public character of broadcasting is understandable. Yet developments in the 1970s, including economic recession, led to a right, neo-liberal political shift. In this neo-liberal ideology, blown over from the United States, restrictions of market forces were unpopular: ‘Social
development was to proceed according to the dictates of the market, with a minimum of government involvement. According to this neo-liberal view, this political shift would enhance the freedom of the individual’ (Dahlgren, 2000: p.25). The negative
result of this political shift was that the gap between the rich and the poor grew in a dazzling way as Thomas Palley statistically analyses in case of the European Union (Palley, 2013: p.37-45). A second development following the neo-liberal shift was that the privatization of many former state-owned enterprises was carried out. Former public organizations and companies, operating in favour of the public were now turned into profitable organisations. Public broadcasters were not excepted from this trend. This meant that public broadcasters would have to increase their effectiveness. Bureaucracy and overspending, characteristics regularly assigned to these organisations was condemned, leading to restructuring (Dahlgren, 2000: p.24-28; Papathanassopoulos: p.13).
As mentioned, neo-liberal policies had a great effect on economy and businesses. Welfare states, characterized by their national boundaries and enterprises, operating for the largest part within their countries were affected by an increasing amount of economic actors who operated on an international level an to whom state lines had hardly any meaning (Gomery: p.15584-15586). The best broadcasting example of this internationalisation are transnational satellite channels that can be received by those who pay for it, anywhere. Yet international broadcasters are not the only example of internationalisation of television, since a great number of national commercial channels also answer to foreign investors. There are many examples of such a construction. The part-ownership of the Dutch SBS by the Finnish Sanoma, for instance (Dahlgren, 2000: p.28-30).
Other factors that lead to the deregulation of media in Europe should also be designated and that are social changes. Dahlgren and Eli Skogerbø each individually elaborate on these changes. According to Dahlgren and Skogerbø, the most important of these changes was cultural differentiation. For the biggest part this differentiation was caused by the growing amount of immigrants in many European countries. This immigration flow led to more pluralistic societies. Many countries (except for The Netherlands who had a long history of immigration and living in a society composed of many different cultures), developed from a single ethnic country into a multi ethnic one, a development that broadened the public’s demand and differed its interests regarding broadcasting, amongst others. Another social change is the cultural differentiation within groups. Changes in lifestyle, interests, growth in affluence and a growing amount of leisure time changed
demand within groups. People came in a position where they had the chance to move into consumer-based activities and leisure time and because of growing markets due to the neo-liberal policies people had an expanding amount of choices they could make. The growth in leisure time also had the effect of a growing amount of travelling and tourism, a development that also altered the individual worldview (Dahlgren, 2000: p.27-28; Skogerbø: p.1376-1378).
The last important social change Dahlgren mentions was the overall individualisation of civil society. Especially among the young memberships of political parties, involvement in community initiatives and participation in other classic civil institutions declined and was replaced by more commercial, diverse activities. Jostein Gripsrud also elaborates on these social changes that clarify the demand of a larger amount of television channels, since interests were not as common and general as they once were (Gripsrud, 2001: p.15568-15570). The negative result of this demand is that a multi channel broadcasting system enhances fragmentation already ignited by the social developments as mentioned above. The result of all these developments mentioned by Dahlgren, Gripsrud and Skogerbø have a great impact on broadcasting policy: ‘This, together with fiscal
limitations, ideological shift and social changes, has made it more difficult for governments to enact effective broadcasting policy with regulation aimed at public service.’ (Dahlgren, 2000: p.29)
Another significant factor for the change of the broadcasting landscape and policies is the technological revolution. The development of cable and satellite and this becoming an affordable, interchangeable technique for antenna transmission, lead to the falsification of the argument that airwaves were scarce and had to be overlooked by governments. This meant that the public monopoly on broadcasting was no longer needed. Technological development led to a convergence of technology, enlarging its purposes and creating opportunities for the broadcasting landscape (Papathanassopoulos, 2002: p.9-11).
In the 30 years since then, the media landscape in Europe has changed dramatically. Where in 1980, except for Britain, Italy and Luxembourg (Holtz-Bacha and Norris: p123) all non-communist European states had a public monopoly on their broadcasting, in 1999 there were only three left with this kind of system (Austria, Ireland and Switzerland). The rest of the countries transferred
to a dual system, with public- and private broadcasters competing in one market (Brants and Bens: p.21; Skogerbø: p.1375). The above mentioned developments had many implications. The most important implication was that these developments required new national- and international policies. These policies were not only affecting the sector witch they applied to. Policies in one sector had an effect on other sectors. For instance, policies regarding cable companies opened up possibilities for commercial enterprises and therefore had an effect on broadcasting policies. Papathanassopoulos summarizes this effectively: ‘Under a
deregulated or liberalized regime, television companies are free to pursue the dictates of the market both domestically and internationally and they too become tradable commodities in themselves. This can often lead to a greater concentration of media power, which, in turn, requires the attention of domestic and international regulators’ (Papathanassopoulos: p.10). A question that arises is what effects these
neoliberal policies have had on broadcasting in the European Union. These effects will be elaborately discussed in the next chapters but Graham Murdock expresses a short summary of the effects: according to Murdock, neoliberal policies have led to the marketization of media. This marketization has three major effects. First, they have led to increasing power of major media corporations, further discussed in Chapter 3 and 6. Second, marketization eroded the power of public media institutions, since they are becoming less able to compete with commercial enterprises. Chapter 6 will discuss this effect. Third, marketization has led media from providing the public with cultural resources that are required for full citizenship, to a more consumer-satisfaction based way of providing content, as the case study will show. This consumerism could be considered a threat to the public interest, an argument that will be further explained in the next chapter.(Murdock, 2001: p.9362).
Because of the above-mentioned circumstances, the biggest challenge policy makers and broadcasters were facing was change and being able to adapt to- and regulate these changes. The challenge was (and is) that while adapting, the broadcasting landscape kept developing as well, making it a necessity to try to prevent lagging up behind development.
Chapter 3: Theoretical Framework, Concepts and Definitions
3.1: Introduction
In this chapter, an outline will be given of mediatization, the theory used as approaching method. Besides an explanation of this method, this chapter serves as a mean to define different concepts that will be discussed and applied in this thesis, to benefit their operationalization. The most important of these concepts is the public interest. To avoid misunderstanding of these concepts, and to clearly outline their definition in this thesis, it is considered important to define them individually.
3.2: Mediatization
“Mediatization generally refers to the process through which core elements of a social or cultural
activity (e.g. politics, religion, and education) become influenced by and dependent on the media. As a consequence, the activity is to a greater or lesser degree performed through interaction with various media, and the symbolic content and the structure of social and cultural activities are influenced by the modus operandi of the media, i.e. their institutional, aesthetic, and technological affordances. Mediatization implies a change not only in the degree of media influence on cultural and social affairs, but also in the very way we may conceptualize the media-society relationship.”
(Hjarvard, 2012: p.30)
3.2.1: Rise and Importance of Media Studies
The field of media studies has grown significantly over the last decades. According to Stig Hjarvard, Professor at the Department of Media, Cognition and Communication at the University of Copenhagen and regarded as most influential authority in his field of research for this thesis, this growth is not only quantitatively, with a vast growth in different study programs, researchers and published articles. The qualitative growth of media studies should also be mentioned, including theoretical, historical and methodological contributions and
developments that have helped media studies to ‘mature’. From a research field that was characterized by being small, fragmented and lacking institutional foundation, media studies have grown into a major discipline with a strong institutional basis (Hjarvard, 2012: p.27-30).
This growth cannot only be credited to quantitative and qualitative aspects. The growing importance and presence of media in public and everyday life has made it more popular amongst students and has revealed the importance of relevant media research. Besides that, the scope of media studies has enlarged as well. New media, for instance, added many phenomena to the field of research. In modern society, media is present in all spheres and layers (Hepp, 2012: p11-15). Because of this, media studies differ from other major disciplines like sociology. Where such different studies deal with fundamental, societal questions; media studies originated as being cross-disciplinary. Scholars generally came from social, humanities, psychology and technology studies and brought their own valuable insights and methods. On the foundation these scholars build, media studies have become an institutionalized, respected field of study, from an external point of view (Dahlgren, 2001: p.9350-9354).
On the other hand, there are internal problems with media studies. First, media studies still lack commonly accepted theories, methods and concepts. The second problem is media studies’ wide applicability. As mentioned, media studies encompass many societal phenomena. Because of that, there is a substantive amount of specialisations, of which some have got little to do with others. Where media studies were founded on the shoulders of experts with various disciplines, it are now scholars who are educated in media studies that are responsible for the development of their discipline, with a constantly enlarging research field. This field asks for interdisciplinary work where the researchers lack such knowledge, again resulting in fragmentation: “As a result, younger researchers may have a
stronger sense of the field’s characteristics than do their predecessors, but they may be less capable of deploying their theories and methodologies from other disciplines for the study of media and communication.” (Hjarvard, 2012: p.27-32).
According to Hjarvard, fragmentation of media studies is inevitable, caused by its vast field of research. Because of this, Hjarvard stresses the importance of defining the role and influence of media in and on modern society. Media studies
are becoming more important every day, but attention should be focussed on mediatization, instead of on mediation (Hjarvard 2012: p.33). The difference between these two terms is disputed. Some theorists use the first while meaning the latter, or disregard any difference between the two. Besides that, a linguistic problem occurs defining and translating mediation and mediatization (Livingstone, 2009: p.3-5). Despite Livingstone’s critical treatment of the different terms, this essay adopts the distinction between mediation and mediatization. Mediation is considered to be a too general term (Lundby, 2009: p.2-5). A specified definition of mediation is “(…) communication by means of a medium and the choice
of medium may influence both the content of communication and the relationship between sender and receiver.” (Hjarvard, 2012: p.32) Despite its specification,
mediation can refer to any kind of mediated communication. Besides, the process of mediation does not change culture or society. Mediatization does. So mediation is about communicating and interacting by means of a medium where mediatization is about the role of media in cultural and social changes (Hjarvard, 2012: p.32).
3.2.2: Rise of Mediatization
Before defining the concept, it is desirable to discuss the factors and research streams that preceded mediatization. These came together around the mid-2000s and made the development of mediatization a necessity for developed countries. The most important factor is the growing role in everyday lives of media: not only the traditional media contribute to this growth; the Internet is also a large contributor, especially regarding online social networking and user-generated content. Mainly because of this, media becomes globalized. Anyone can access media from anywhere. Media has consequently acquired an even more important role. Providing information, communication, education and leisure, amongst others (Couldry and Hepp, 2013: p.191-193).
Concerning the research streams, one should regard the media research methods that have researched the effects of media on processes of cultural and social change to which mediatization is an answer, or a critique: medium theory
and effect research. The first describes socio-cultural changes as a result of the arrival of a new dominant medium. In this way, media theory constructs history based on the succession of oral, scribal, print and electronic cultures. Media effects research deploys a more short-term research, in which the effects of media content on society are analyzed. Both approaches did help construct a way of understanding the relationship between media, culture and society. However, both have their weaknesses. Media theory disregards media content and merely focuses on medium and its effects on society. Effect research on its turn neglects the type of medium and the overall social context in which content is placed. Also, both approaches have failed to conceptualize an important feature of modern society: “Media are no longer ‘outside’ society exerting a specific influence or effect on culture
and therefore on individuals. In our present media-saturated society media are inside society, part of the very fabric of culture;” (Hepp, Hjarvard and Lundby, 2010:
p.223-224).
A conceptual framework must be able to accept media influence in modern society and to show this new social condition. Mediatization does this in its various theorizations, in between which there is a mutual agreement of analyzing the ‘media logic’: the influence of media on society that reflects the institutionalized and technological character of different media as well as different media content and their influence on other fields of society. This is a complex way of theorizing and forces scholars to involve other disciplines and social fields. These fields are not affected by mediatization to the same extent, which emphasises the diversity of the theory. Mediatization expresses the growing influence, or even domination of media in modern society. What the effects of these developments are for different fields should be investigated empirically (Hepp, Hjarvard and Lundby: p.224-227).
3.2.3: Defining Mediatization
As Hjarvard states, media scholars have been successful in building the external foundations of media studies. What needs to be focussed on now, is the development of mediatization theory because of its value to link different studies to assess the role of media power within cultural development and change. If this
development does not happen, media studies will remain a ‘half-baked discipline’ (Hjarvard, 2012: p.31-33).
Mediatization does not have a fixed set of theories or methodologies. There are two traditions in mediatization: the institutionalist and the social constructivist one. The social constructivist tradition focuses on the changing communicative construction of society. The institutionalists’ tradition focuses on mass media and its influence described as ‘media logic’, which will be further explained in this paragraph (Hepp, 2013: p.616). For this thesis, the focus will lie on the institutionalist approach, which focuses on mass media’s ‘media logic’ (Hepp.2013: p.616), supported by Hjarvard. This approach, coming from journalism studies and political communication, regards the media as an independent social institution with its own set of rules, and analyzes how others adapt to these rules. (Couldry and Hepp: p.196). Despite these two traditions, mediatization theory not only needs to be specified, it must also prove its usefulness as an analytical tool: “A
theory of mediatization has to be able to describe overall developmental trends in society across different contexts and, by means of concrete analysis, demonstrate the impacts of media on various institutions and spheres of human activity.” (Hjarvard,
2008: p.113)
Winfried Schulz, a scholar who positions himself between the two traditions has reconstructed mediatization as analytical concept of which elements can be used by both these traditions. Schulz defines mediatization as the development of media and the social changes following this development (Schulz, 2004: p.88). According to Schulz, the key role media play in these changes can be defined as extension, substitution, amalgamation and accommodation. First, extension refers to the media technologies that extent the natural limits of human communication capacities. Second, the substitution role media play refers to the way in which different media have partly or completely substituted social activities and social institutions and by doing that changing their character. Third, amalgamation describes the process by which the way media is interwoven into the fabric of everyday life, in al spheres: the professional, economic, cultural, political and public sphere. These three concepts are applicable analyzing tools for both institutionalists and social constructivists. Accommodation, Schulz’s fourth concept is a more institutionalist concept. By accommodation, Schulz means the
way in which society in all earlier mentioned spheres have to accommodate to the way media operate. To accommodate to their media logic, so to say (Schulz: p.88-90).
What Schulz questions at the end of ‘Reconstructing Mediatization as an
Analytical Concept’ (2004), is whether mediatization is still an appropriate concept,
considering the entrance of multiple new-media channels. Indeed, this is a good question to ask. Schulz thinks that mediatization will evolve together with the growing amount of media, maintaining its applicability. So besides the evolving media landscape, the concept will have to keep on evolving and integrating different views, in order for it to remain applicable (Schulz: p.94-99).
It is almost impossible to give one clear definition of mediatization. Whether an insitutionalist-, a social constructivist-, or an in-between approach is adopted, all characteristics are in some way applicable. Yet this thesis will focus on Hjarvard’s institutionalist approach. According to Hjarvard, previous institutionalist applications of the concept lack a common definition. There are scholars like Esa Valiverronen who have used mediatization to generally refer to the growing media influence. These scholars do not consider mediatization to be ‘a
strict analytical concept, but rather an ambiguous term which refers to the increasing cultural and social significance of the mass media, and other forms of technically mediated communication’ (Valiverronen, 2001: p.159). This is
considered to be a too loose application of the term, referring to the successive growth of media influence in modern day society.
Other scholars like Kent Asp use mediatization as a theory to explain media’s relation to politics. Asp claims that politics adapt to the mass media demand of how they want to report on political news (Hjarvard, 2008: p. 106). What these scholars do, is use mediatization on different levels. These levels lack conceptualization. Hjarvard avoids these different levels of analysis by defining mediatization as a central concept in a theory that analyses both the changing importance and the intensified role of media in modern culture and society. It is more than a label for a set of events that show a growth in media influence and it should also relate to other sociological theories (Hjarvard, 2008: p.113).
What needs to be accepted is that mediatization leads to the mediatization of society. Society is submitted or even dependant on the media and their logic. As
a result of this development, a duality arises. Not only do the media become integrated in other social institutions, media also becomes a social institution of its own. As a result, almost all social interaction takes place via media. In ‘The
Mediatization of Society: A Theory of the Media as Agents of Social and Cultural Change’, Hjarvard gives a comprehensive definition of mediatization:
“Mediatization is to be considered a double-sided process of high modernity in which the media on the
one hand emerge as an independent institution with a logic of its own that other social institutions have to accommodate to. On the other hand, media simultaneously become an integrated part of other institutions like politics, work, family, and religion as more and more of these institutional activities are performed through both interactive and mass media.
(Hjarvard, 2008: p.105)
Hjarvard refers to media as an independent institution. In this case institutions are defined from a sociological perspective, in which they stand for stable and predictable elements in modern society regarding human interaction. There are many institutions in modern society who act as a framework to operate in for all actors. According to Hjarvard (2012) and Art Silverblatt (2004) what characterizes institutions is that they have a degree of autonomy and that its identity is clear and distinctive compared to other institutions. Besides that, every institution has a set of rules that must be respected (Hjarvard, 2012: p.113-117; Silverblatt: p.35-37). But how have media become an independent institution? Institutions as family and politics are imbedded in society. Media as independent institution is a recent development. Media developed into an independent institution because of societal and technological developments as discussed in Chapter 2. In the beginning stages of modern society, many institutions became independent: state and church were divided, for instance. Then with the rise of radio, public became more generalized and media transformed into a cultural institution. During these developments, media served as an instrument for established institutions, steered by authorities and assigned a role. Especially considering public broadcasting, media had certain tasks like informing the public. Acting out of the public interest, so to say (Hjarvard, 2012: p.115-118).
Since the 1980s, media has become less a cultural institution and more an independent one. Media became more market oriented due to the entrance of
commercial media, as described in Chapter 2. Because of this, instead of representing other institutions, media started servicing their audiences. From a sender-steered system, media has developed into consumer-steered, offering what the public wants (Murdock: p.9361-9363). This does not totally imply that media have turned into a private enterprise, acting according to the logic of the market. That is exactly the duality mediatization encompasses: media not only becomes independent due to commercial influences, it still serves as communication method for institutions to interact with the public and other institutions. Media still serve the public interest, but in an autonomous way. Michael Schudson supports Hjarvard’s view by stating that media, especially journalists reporting on politics, are a spokesperson for society yet independent and therefore not accountable to the public (Schudson, 2002: p.249-251). Media has transformed into an independent institution. Regarding the public interest: serving this interest is no longer the sole purpose of media, it is part of it, as part s of the sense of journalistic and media professionalism: “The duality of having broken away from
other institutions’ operations, yet still serve collective communication functions in society give the media central importance to society as a whole.” (Hjarvard, 2012:
p.117-119). In this sense, media serves three functions, which can be summarised as: “(…) a nexus between institutions, as an interpretative frame for understanding
society, and as an arena in which members of a society can discuss and decide matters of common interest (Hjarvard, 2008: p.125-126).
In contemporary society, media serves these functions by their own set of rules: their own logic. They are no longer dependants of other institutions, it are the other institutions that are depending on the media and need to act according to the media logic. Altheide and Snow first posed the term media logic in 1979. They were the first to point out that the logic of the media had become so taken for granted by both sender and receiver, that it was overlooked as an important factor that can be used to understand media. Hjarvard has adopted this argument (Hepp, 2012: p.3-6) and defines media logic as follows: “The logic of the media refers to the
institutional and technological modus operandi of the media, including the ways in which media distribute material and symbolic resources, and make use of formal and informal rules.” (Hjarvard, 2008: p.105) Media logic is based on the journalistic
When institutions do not adapt to this media logic, the will be unable to express themselves, diminishing their relevance. So mediatization also means the increasing dependence and subjection to this logic (Hjarvard, 2008: p.126-128). Hjarvard distinguishes a direct- and an indirect form of mediatization. Direct mediatization is a given unmediated social activity that is substituted by a mediated one. Indirect mediatization is when an activity is increasingly influenced by media-specific forms, like politics (Hjarvard, 2008: p.114-115; Schudson: p.251-255). Indeed, there is a linkage in this definition with Schulz who was mentioned before (Schulz: p.90-99). Direct mediatization refers to Schulz’s ‘substitution’, indirect mediatization to ‘accommodation’, and in the grey area where it is not clear whether mediatization is direct or indirect, one could speak of ‘amalgamation’. Hjarvard does not agree with ‘extension’, because he believes that extension is actually a mediation, and not specific for the process of his institutional focus on mediatization (Hepp, 2012: p.5-6). Again, you see that the definition of mediatization is a complex one. But, as mentioned, this thesis focuses on Hjarvard’s institutional approach, that shows that media as an independent institution has become very powerful, a power that cannot be disregarded in social sciences.
3.3: Public Interest
“Along these lines, the media should facilitate the process of rational argumentation by providing a
context of public discourse, which is essential for the formation of free and reason-based public opinion. The media should maximize debate over political ideas and contribute to public information and argumentation, which are essential to the maintenance of democracy. Public information is essential both for expressing the common interest and for taking part in the debate about that common interest. But the nature of people’s participation in the public sphere has shifted.”
3.3.1: The Public
As stated in the introduction, media are considered of high importance for the shaping of public opinion regarding public interest topics. Yet, who are meant by
the public? Do we only regard private citizens as the public or do we also
incorporate pressure groups or unions? For this thesis, every citizen, whether as an individual or united in an organisation is meant when the term public occurs. A discussion that comes to mind when treating the public is the citizen-consumer dichotomy: every individual is a citizen, as well as a consumer. Citizenship implies every social, cultural or economic activity expressed in the public sphere. This public sphere is defined according to Habermas’ definition wherein the public has the right and freedom to discuss matters of general interest in an uncontrolled matter (Habermas et al. 1974: p. 49-51; Dahlgren, 2001: p.9355). The values of these citizens should encompass the progress of society as a whole. To maintain these values, it is a citizen’s responsibility to be politically and economically informed and to actively participate in society. On the other hand, every individual is a consumer. Consumerism is regarded as individualistic behaviour: individuals consume certain products, services and information they choose themselves, disregarding societal or communal progress. This popular way of individual expression is seen as a threat, especially by left winged partisans because in their perspective it jeopardizes an individual’s will to express his economic and political citizenship. But, with the economic, social and technological developments in mind, one should question whether there still is a clear distinction between citizens and consumers. In modern society, consumerism also leads to preferences, constructing citizen’s values. Popular culture, in that way contributes to citizenship. Therefore, right- winged partisans reject the dichotomy between consumers and citizens (Iosfidis: p.28-31). This thesis accepts both the left-winged, as the right-winged arguments.
Indeed, modern developments have contributed to consumerism and the growth of popular culture does contribute to the public’s political and economic values. Yet the correct question is whether this contribution is one that has a
positive influence on society, or if it enhances individualization resulting in a fragmented society.
3.3.2: Major Schools
To define the public interest, one should regard the different schools of thought on this subject. The public interest has been a widely discussed topic, where for its definition consensus is still absent. What it does refer to, is a common characteristic between and among citizens (King et al., 2009: p.955-957) In his article ‘The Public Interest: Its Meaning in Democracy’ (1962), Anthony Downs refers to Glendon Schubert, who distinguished the three mayor schools varying in their definition: the rationalist, the idealist (or Platonist) and the realist school (Downs, 1962: p.11; Schubert, 1957: p.347-364). Schubert himself rejected all three concepts because of their lack of applicability (Schubert: 366-367). Downs, on his turn believes that all three of these schools are substantive. Each of them contains a partial truth that contributes to the understanding of public interest; therefore they are discussed below, especially the rationalist- and the idealist school since both schools will be further applied in this thesis (Downs, 1962: p.11; King et al.: p.957-959).
According to the first school, the rationalists, leaning on the work of Herbert Simon think that the public interest consists of the will of the people (King et al.: p.958). Discussed in both Downs’ and King’s articles, Schubert refers to the government, declaring that what the government is ought to do is what the people want it to do. In this perspective, the government has one job: to find out the peoples demands and act according to these demands. The people, in this definition refer to a majority of citizens. Down states that the rationalist school places too much weight on the public opinion (Downs: p.14). Public opinion does play a role in decision-making, but the public should be protected from itself because it is uniformed, compared with officials. Besides that, sometimes the opinion of a minority has got better effects than that of the majority, in which case it is up to the government officials to make the right choice, despite the ‘democratic’ principle being undermined. The public has got the power to come to
consensus, but this consensus is far too vague in most cases, impeding the creation of detailed policies (Schubert: 354-355). Therefore, officials should protect those they represent by being the best informed and by knowing what is right for their citizens. Rationalists do have a point when they emphasise the importance of the will of the people. The majority of these people must at the end approve the policies made in the public interest. If they do not, and when government officials fail to convince them of their right doing, the power of the people comes forward in popular elections. This creates a balance between the popular will, and the decisions of government officials where a degree of correspondence between these two must always be the outcome (Downs: p.11-14; King et al.: p.957-959).
The second school, that of the idealist , or the Platonist school as King et al. and Schubert himself originally defined it (King et al.: p.958; Schubert: p. 349-357) find that the public interest should be defined as what is best for the whole society, measured by a couple of absolute standards of values. Idealists, represented by Emmette Redford and Paul Appleby, think that to stipulate this public interest, it is of no importance whether citizens actually regard this interest as important. It is the government’s task to honour the standards of values and to apply them (King et al.: p.957-961). The public opinion is not negligible and should be inquired, but it is the task of the government to educate its citizens on the importance of their choices, rather than letting the citizens consult them. The public interest is not a sum of individual preferences, it is agreed on by society as a whole. The problem with the idealist school is that it does not provide a tangible, single guide for choosing those policies that are in the public interest. “The crucial questions are
thus what standard of values is the proper one, how a person translates such values into concrete policy decisions, and what kind of relationship between the decision-makers and the citizenry”. (Downs: p.14)
Idealists assume that there are absolute values that should be regarded as appropriate for policy-makers. Whether these are based on natural law or ethics, it is two short sighted to assume that every citizen will regard the same values as indispensible for the continuance of democracy. Besides that, as it is with the rationalists, these values are considered vague and generalized and almost impossible to derive policies from. Another critique is that forming absolute values in a pluralistic society is not realistic, even when based on the minimal consensus
acting as guiding principle (Schubert: p.343). Officials apply these values in order to uphold and maintain the welfare of society, yet, as already discussed; various societal actors debate upon this welfare. As a result, officials will regard their own ethics as serving the public good, since the given set of absolute standards impede detailed direction. Despite the weaknesses of the idealist school, it does imply certain truths on how public interest is defined and appointed. Officials may make their decisions out op personal interest, which is holding their position, yet the fact that they do also contributes to the public interest. Since officials can be removed from their position by democracy, it is this democracy that will make them act in favour of the public interest (Schubert: p.353-356). This thesis adopts Downs’ term idealist instead of Platonist, and idealist assume that there is a fixed set of absolute values and they believe that every official will honour these values, choosing the best set while making policy. The set values should always be seen as the most important: if the values applied were not correct enough, elections will condemn them who favoured them (Downs: p.11, 13-17).
The third and last school named by Schubert and discussed by Downs and King is the realist school, represented by Arthur Fisher Bentley, Bentley’s disciple David Truman and Pendleton Herring (Schubert: p.357-364). As stated, the realists school will not be further discussed in this thesis yet their overall motivation of their view on public interest is that every essence of this interest is based on individual motives, whether it is the right of every involved individual to express his concerns, or whether it is a social group that uses it to safeguard their needs: it starts with the individual and becomes an accepted standard (Downs: p.11, 17-19).
3.3.3: The Major Schools and Media
What attracts attention in the different perspectives on public interest discussed above, is the term ‘public opinion’. As stated in the introduction, media is relied on when shaping public opinion, especially regarding topics that address the public interest (Maier and Rittberger: p.247; Ngoa: p.137-139). Media policymakers are expected to safeguard the principle of serving the public interest in all their policymaking. Yet as we have seen, the problem with the term public interest is
that it has many definitions and interpretations. Not only do the various definitions cause difficulties, the different interpretations of the criteria of public interest also vary between regions. Besides that, over time the definition of public interest has also evolved because of societal, ideological and technological developments, as mentioned in Chapter 2. Since Downs wrote the article on Schubert’s work cited in the previous paragraph, these changes are endless. Over 50 years have passed since both works were published. Still, despite it’s evolved meaning and various interpretations between regions; public interest serves as a normative guidepost for media policymakers. In ‘Global Media and Communication Policy’ (2011), Petros Iosfidis discusses the public interest in the changing, global media environment, starting with Schubert’s mayor schools which, despite Schubert’s own pessimism discussed above, still serve as a guiding principle that Iosfidis uses to further elaborate on this hard to define concept (Iosfidis: p.23-35).
On the subject of the media, the rationalist school believe that the public interest should be applied as the will of the people, that what the majority wants. The public interest is a collection of private choices (Downs: p.12-16; Schubert: 349-357; King et al.: 957-959). Therefore, every program in which a large part of the public is interested, serves the public interest. Here lies a problem, which is that the public interest is considered the same thing as the popular interest. The question is, if this is the case? Should public interest be equated with the popular interest? Is everything that is popular directly serving the public interest? According to rationalists, it is. The public interest is nothing more that the sum of individual preferences. That what is popular in the eyes of the majority is in the public interest. “In the case of media an communications, the majoritarian approach
would best be represented by allocating more freedom to individuals so they can maximize their personal welfare even at the expense of others. Along these lines, broadcasting or print media systems should by governed by market mechanisms, which will eventually identify winners and losers.” (Iosfidis: p.25-26)
For the idealist school and the media, the public interest is set by a set of standards that override what the public wants. This set of standards is created to establish a common value and is supposed to bring benefits to the public (Downs: p.14-17; Schubert: P.349-357; King et al.: 957-959). Public broadcasting services (PBS) are the media to whom this definition can be applied, because of their goal to
educate, to inform and to preserve the national identity and culture, amongst others. In contrast with the rationalists, idealist public interest does not regard the popular wants while stating the public interest. The public interest is constructed on a macro level, serving a greater good than that of individuals. This also reveals weaknesses in the theory. First, when totally disregarding the will of the public, a distance between (in this case) the media and the public can occur. Second, this way of defining the public interest has a paternalistic or even an authoritarian character that invites criticism (Iosfidis: p.26).
Regarding the rationalist- and the idealist school in combination with media in short, rationalists believe that public interest is the sum of individual interest. That what the majority finds interesting, is serving the public interest and should therefore be broadcasted. Idealists, on the contrary, believe that the individual interests should not be included in stating the public interest. It consists of accepted common values that decide what the public’s interest is, with education, information and culture maintenance as core activities. Media should regard these activities as their core tasks, despite what the public wants.
3.3.4: Public Interest in Modern European Society
The Western world’s general public interest philosophy is characterized by: “freedom of communication (expression and opinion), universal access to
information and knowledge (inclusiveness), diversity (plurality of ownership and content diversity) and accountability” (Iosfidis: p.76). Over the last decades, the
expression of this philosophy and the way it was maintained has changed dramatically (Garnham, 2001: p.12586-12588). Where the state and their allied policymakers were expected to uphold this philosophy by any means and intervene there where necessary, ideological, social and technical developments have altered this standard. Because of that, it has to be emphasised that “today’s
communications policymakers find it difficult to define the concept of the public interest and therefore establish goals for policy, This difficulty stems partly from the fact that any policy is scrutinized and questioned because of potential limitations on the freedom of people and partly from the changing character of the concept itself”
What stands out in this quote is the term ‘freedom’. As discussed in Chapter 2, over the last 30 years neoliberalism has large had effects on media policies in Europe. So beside the major schools and their view on public interest discussed above, the neoliberal approach to this concept cannot be rejected. According to neoliberals, what is in the public’s interest is freedom, especially the freedom of the market. For the neoliberal system to succeed, free market competition is most important and serves the public interest at best. According to neoliberals, the market produces the best outcome for the majority of people. The wants of the people, as expressed by the rationalist school, should be determined through market forces. Deregulation and a stop to state intervention will eventually lead to the best situation for the public. The problem with this definition of public interest is that as a result, the entire concept becomes marginalized and commercialized (Iosfidis: p.70-80).
Therefore, to define the public interest, this thesis keeps the rationalist definition in mind but it will generally use Iosfidis’ definition witch has an idealist core: “the idea of public interest to refer to the collective cultural, political, social and
informational benefits to society, which serve both the democratic process of political participation and cultural, social and economic well-being.” (Iosfidis: p.27) Media
are relied upon to serve this public interest and to provide the public with information so they are able to shape their opinion. As Mutz and Young effectively state concerning the political element of this definition: “(…) people in a democratic
society should be well informed so they can hold political leadership accountable. And certainly they should be exposed to diverse political arguments so they can make up their minds about the issues of the day.” (Mutz and Young, 2011: p.1040)
This thesis argues that the neoliberal perspective on public interest, based on the rationalist school, should be contested. Indeed, one could argue that the freedom of the market results in the best circumstances for the public. But regarding media policy and the public interest, people should prevent to analyze public interest based on economics. One should keep in mind that politics and culture-based analysis are more important for media policy because of “the wider
policy concerns of symbolic representation, national and civic identity and media influence on public opinion.” (Iosfidis: p.77-78) When public interest is based on
since they probably do not have personal experience with this as Maier and Ritbtberger and Stuart Soroka discuss. This diminishes their interest where the information is considered of great value (Maier and Rittberger: p.247-251; Soroka, 2003: p.28-30). Because of that, this thesis argues that Iosfidis’ perception of public interest is desirable, in light of public opinion, education, informing and preserving values and norms.
