Page 176 - Communication and Citizenship Journalism and the Public Sphere

MUSICAL CHAIRS? 165

effect in 1981); it also laid down the principle that the media should
express a diversity of views and standpoints, and should be accountable
to the public.
Solidarity’s First Congress in 1981 demanded the abolition of what it
called the state administration’s monopoly of broadcasting; announced
that it would fight to win access to, and establish genuine social control
over, the broadcast media, and announced that in addition to its own press
it would also set up a wide array of other media outlets. It also
supported the journalists’ right to a say in the running of the media and
initiated the process of drafting a new broadcasting law, which was
interrupted by the introduction of martial law.
Thus began the effort, launched by Solidarity aided by the
Association of Polish Journalists, to define the principles which should
govern the new information order in the country.
The key concept here is socialization, meaning direct social control
over the media operating in the interest of society. A second major
concept is access, understood broadly enough to be almost equivalent to
‘the right to communicate’. ‘Social access to the media’ is a widely used
phrase, meaning that the media should be at the disposal of society for
the purpose of free, untrammelled and pluralistic communication.
Hence a determination to abolish all monopolies in this sphere. Thus,
what used to be a system of top-down, unidirectional and univocal
communication would become one of horizontal, participatory
communication (‘society talking to itself’).
As can be seen, in terms of the communication democratization
debate, these ideas are not really new ones, not even in Eastern
European debates on democratization of communication (Jakubowicz
1987). However, they place special emphasis on one aspect of
communication democratization which deserves special attention here.
Scannell (1989) speaks of ‘communicative entitlements’ which
presuppose ‘communicative rights’ (the right to speak freely, for
example). However, in the British system of representative democracy
to which Scannell is referring, it is the role of the broadcasters, acting
‘on behalf’ of the public, to ‘entitle’ it to speak and serve as gatekeepers
in the process. It is thus a system in which ‘power accrues to the
representatives, not to those whom they represent’ (Scannell 1989:163).
In the sphere of broadcasting, exactly the same approach has been
proposed by the power structure in Poland. As part of the new strategy
outlined above, it was accepted that the broadcast media should serve as
channels of ‘bottom-up’ communication; but it was the media