Importing the Fourth Estate to Importing the Fourth Estate to the European Union: the European Union:

Problems and considerations for European democracy

Jesse Owen Hearns-BranamanPhD Researcher

Institute of Communication Studies, University of Leeds

OutlineOutline

1) Relationship between democracy and news media

2) Fourth Estate as Myth3) Development of Fourth Estate Myth

i. Formative Phaseii. Simulation-Reinforcement Phase

4) Applications to EU5) Further Research

1) 1) Relationship between Democracy and Relationship between Democracy and News MediaNews Media

Hackett (2005) – Three Critiques Free Market / Neoliberal / Neoconservative “Public Sphere” Liberalism Radical Democratic / Politico-Economic

Hallin & Mancini (2004) – Three Models Liberal – secular, market mechanisms, commercial Democratic Corporatist – commercial/secular,

limited state Polarized Pluralized – non-secular, strong state

Splichal (2006) – “Publicness” Kant – Publicity, enlightenment of the people, public

use of reason, free speech and expression, moral force

Bentham – Utilitarian (maximum happiness), surveillance of the government by press, free press

1) 1) Relationship between Democracy and Relationship between Democracy and News MediaNews Media

Agreement from many scholars that ‘free market’ / liberal / Bentham systems are greatly limited by relationship with capital

But ideas of free press and free speech are conflated (Splichal 2006)

All place news media as important in performing ‘Fourth Estate’-style checks (Hackett 2005: 86, 89, 92; Hallin & Mancini 2005: 225, 231; etc)

Spread of Liberal/Free Market system

UK has already moved towards a more ‘American’ system (Herman & McChesney 1997: 166-170)

Media consultants from USA are being hired to give advice over much of Europe (Allan 2000)

‘Liberal’ system is gaining dominance outside its homeland (Hallin & Mancini 2004, 2005)

Importation will cause increased corruption for parties and a “vicious circle of further alienation from ordinary voters” (Voltmer 2006: 252)

3) Fourth Estate as Myth3) Fourth Estate as Myth (Bottici 2007: 112)

“is not an explanation that is put forward to satisfy a contemplative curiosity over the world”

“derives its crucial features from the fact that it has a specific social function”

Tends to function less by “providing ultimate

explanations for being” than religion/spirituality

less on “‘how’ the world exists” than science

Performs a role left unfilled, even in ‘enlightened’ and modern societies

MythMyth Science

Spirituality

3) Fourth Estate as Political Myth3) Fourth Estate as Political Myth “the work on a common narrative by which

the members of a social group (or society) … make significance of their experience and deeds” (Bottici 2007: 133)

The Fourth Estate was “neither a consistent nor absolutely clear set of practices,” yet it was “an important contribution to the discursive formation of journalism” (Conboy 2004: 109)

It provided “an important rhetorical bridge between the interests of the newspapers and those of the newly enfranchised … middle classes” (ibid)

3) Myth & Class3) Myth & Class (Barthes 1957: 150-151)

Myth “consists in admitting the accidental evil of a class-bound institution” to better

“conceal its principal evil” (i.e. the capitalist system)

This “immunizes the contents of the collective imagination by means of a small inoculation of acknowledged evil: one thus protects it against the risk of a generalized subversion.”

So now “the bourgeoisie no longer hesitates to acknowledge some localized subversions”

because they help to hide the larger principal evil

4) Development of the Fourth Estate 4) Development of the Fourth Estate MythMyth

•Performance of watchdog functions

•Branding as ‘adversarial’

•Branding as biased, left-wing

Secularization

Legal Protection of Press

Marketization / Corporatization

Professionalization

Formative Formative Phase Phase

(18(18thth/19/19thth Centuries)Centuries)

Simulation-Simulation-Reinforcement PhaseReinforcement Phase

3.i) Formative Phase3.i) Formative PhaseSecularisation – Out of direct control

of political parties and governmentMarketization/Corporatization –

Cover price went below cost, reliance on ‘marketplace of ideas’

Legal protection – Freedom of expression, speech and/or press laws established and enforced

Professionalization – Establishment of professional norms and standards

3.i) Effects of Formative 3.i) Effects of Formative Phase?Phase?1. Established apparent neutrality and

trustworthiness of news media in the public’s eyes

2. Placed news media under corporate control, intimately tied with capitalist interests in general

3. Legal protection encouraged expansion of news media businesses

4. Constrained activist (i.e. working-class) publications

5. Gave journalists a professional motivation (myth / common narrative)

6. Constrained debate (“Is journalism performing its watchdog function well enough?”)

3.ii) Simulation-Reinforcement 3.ii) Simulation-Reinforcement PhasePhase

“The social machine now moves … on a Möbius strip, and the social actors are always on both sides of the

contract” (Baudrillard 2001: 21)

Actual performance of watchdog functions (i.e. Watergate, ‘David Kelly affair’)

Branding of news media as adversarial towards government / business interests

Branding of news media actors as being biased (too liberal, too conservative)

ExampleExample: Watergate Scandal: Watergate Scandal(Baudrillard 1978: 26-27)

Scandal is “a means to regenerate a moral and political principle” because “denunciation of scandal always pays homage to the law. And Watergate above all

succeeded in imposing the idea that Watergate was a scandal”

Hence, the resignation of Nixon was simply a “reinjection of a large dose of political morality on a global scale”

“…capital, which is immoral and unscrupulous, can only function behind a moral superstructure, and whoever regenerates this public morality spontaneously

furthers the order of capital, as did the Washington Post journalists”

“Before, the task was to dissimulate scandal … today, the task is to conceal the fact that there is” no real scandal

3.ii) Effects of Simulation-3.ii) Effects of Simulation-Reinforcement Phase?Reinforcement Phase?1. Occasional exposure of corruption

‘shows’ the public the system is working2. Simulates adversarial relationship while

still maintaining reverence for capitalism 3. News media reiterate adherence to

professional norms, continuing to limit activist media (i.e. Internet)

4. Simulates public debate (balance means only two sides to an issue? “Are they or aren’t they?” instead of “Is it important?”)

5. Aids justification for increased deregulation of media system

6. Reinforces false subject(ive) / object(ive) divide (Calcutt & Hammond 2008)

4) APPLICATION TO ‘EU NEWS MEDIA SYSTEM’?

Secularized: State-by-state basis, but neutrality is encouraged

Marketized, ad dependant , corporatized: public-supported news might come under attack? deregulation?

Legally protected of press, professionalized: under Charter of Fundamental Rights more talk for EU-wide standards? ‘Fifth’ freedom of expression?

Performance as watchdog: not Europe-wide yet as most news markets are more local-based; Dr. Meyer : “EU commission aims at invulnerability”

Branding as adversarial, biased: Prof. Trenz - news media seen (hoped?) by EU to perform instrumental role

4) APPLICATIONS FOR EU DEMOCRACY

Policy makers need to differentiate between free speech, free expression and free press

Advertising-based media is not a reliable business model for watchdog journalism

Actual performance of watchdog functions does not preclude passive government/business influence

Commercial news media cannot be relied on to check systemic corruption

Dr. Michailidou: democratization vs. PR (political marketing) functions

FURTHER RESEARCH & QUESTIONS

Public sphere – Contribution of news media to PS will always be coloured by corporate control?

Class and media – need to examine relationship better (i.e. media as a class institution)

Comparative media systems – analysis of spread of Fourth Estate Myth in transitioning democracies

Problematizing and critiquing terms of analysis – Nation-state boundaries? Regional systems? Trans-national media companies? (i.e. van de Steeg 2002)

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY Allen, C. (2000), ‘Sold American: US news consultants and news issues abroad’ in R. Anderson & L Strate (eds),

Critical Studies in Media Commercialism, (Oxford University)

Barthes, R. (1957 [1993]), ‘Myth today,’ in Mythologies, A. Lavers (tr.) (Vintage)

Baudrillard, J. (1978 [1994]), ‘Precession of simulacra’, P. Foss & P. Patton (trs), in Simulations, (Semiotext(e)).

Baudrillard, J. (2001), Impossible Exchange, C. Turner (tr.), (Verso).

Bennett, W. L. (2000), ‘Media power in the United States,’ in J. Curran & M.-J. Park (eds), De-Westernizing Media Studies, (Routledge).

Blumenberg, H. (1979 [1985]), Work on Myth, R. Wallace (tr), (MIT)

Bottici, C. (2007), A Philosophy of Political Myth, (Cambridge University)

Calcutt, A. & P. Hammond (2008) ‘Future of objectivity’, paper presented at End of Journalism?: Technology, Education & Ethics conference, University of Bedfordshire, Luton, UK: Oct 17-18, 2008

Chomsky, N. (2002a), Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky, P.R. Mitchell & J. Schoeffel (eds), (The New Press)

Conboy, M. D. (2004), Journalism: A Critical History, (Sage)

Curran, J. (1978), ‘The press as an agency of social control: An historical perspective’, in G. Boyce, J. Curran & P. Wingate (eds), Newspaper History from the Seventeenth Century to the Present Day, (Constable)

Curran, J. (2000), ‘Rethinking media and democracy’, in J. Curran & M. Guerevitch (eds), Mass Media and Society, 3rd Edition (Arnold)

Curran, J. (2002), Media and Power, (Routledge)

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY• Eriksen, E. O., J. E. Fossum & A. J. Menendez (2004), ‘A constitution in the making?’ in E. O. Eriksen, J. E. Fossum & A. J.

Menendez (eds), Developing a Constitution for Europe, (Routledge)

• Fraleigh, D. M., & Tuman, J. S. (1997), Freedom of Speech in the Marketplace of Ideas, (Bedford/St. Martins)

• Fraser, N. (1992), ‘Rethinking the public sphere: A contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy’, in C. Calhoun (ed.), Habermas and the Public Sphere, (MIT)

• Hallin, D. C., & P. Mancini (2004), Comparing Media Systems: Three Models of Media and Politics, (Cambridge University)

• Hallin, D. C., & P. Mancini (2004), Comparing Media Systems, in J. Curran & M. Gurevitch (eds), Mass Media & Society, 4th ed., (Hodder Arnold)

• Habermas, J. (1962 [1991]), The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society, (MIT)

• Habermas, J. (2004), ‘Why Europe needs a constitution’, in E. O. Eriksen, J. E. Fossum & A. J. Menendez (eds), Developing a Constitution for Europe, (Routledge)

• Hackett, R. A. (2005), ‘Is there a democratic deficit in US and UK journalism?’, in S. Allan (ed), Journalism: Critical Issues, (Open University)

• Hearns-Branaman, J. O. (2008), ‘“Must we ourselves not become gods?”: A perspective on the visual theories of Foucault, Debord and Baudrillard in explaining contemporary power structures,’ in The International Journal of Baudrillard Studies, 5(2).

• Heilbroner, R. L. (1985), The Nature and Logic of Capitalism, (Norton)

• Herman, E. S., & Chomsky, N. (1988), Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media, (Vintage)

• Herman, E. S., & McChesney, R. W. (1997), The Global Media: The New Missionaries of Corporate Capitalism, (Cassel)

• Lippman, W. (1920 [2007]), Liberty and News, (Princeton University Press)

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY McChesney, R. W. (2004), The Problem of the Media: U.S. Communication Politics in the 21st

Century, (Monthly Review)

Splichal, S. (1999), Public Opinion: Developments and Controversies in the 20 th Century, (Rowman and Littlefield)

Splichal, S. (2002), ‘The principle of publicity, public use of reason and social control,’ in Media, Culture and Society, vol. 24: 5-26.

Splichal, S. (2006), ‘In search of a strong European public sphere: Some critical observations on conceptualizations of publicness and the (European) public sphere’, in Media, Culture & Society 28(5): 695-714

Trenz, H. (2004), ‘Media coverage on European governance: Exploring the European public sphere in national quality newspapers’, in European Journal of Communication 19(3): 291-319

Van de Steeg (2002), ‘Rethinking the conditions for a public sphere in the EU’, in European Journal of Social Theory 5(4): 499-519

Voltmer, K. (2006), ‘Conclusion: Political communication between democratization and the trajectories of the past,’ in K. Voltmer (ed), Mass Media and Political Communication in New Democracies, (Routledge)