Page 58 - Communication and Citizenship Journalism and the Public Sphere

RETHINKING THE MEDIA AS A PUBLIC SPHERE 47

capitalist elite. And through collective arrangements, it can also ensure
that media output is pluralistic and diverse.
But the potential promise of collective provision has often been
contradicted by its actual practice. This is partly because collective
provision through the state can result in state control, as is illustrated
notoriously by the stalinist experience. A multi-tiered system of control
was evolved in the Soviet Union—based on formal legal censorship,
control over the material production and distribution of
communications, control over senior appointments, indoctrination in
journalism schools and, more indirectly, control over the flow of
information—which turned the media into an instrument of the state and
the Communist Party.
The collectivist approach proved more successful in European
countries with a tradition of liberal democracy. Even so, a number of
problems recurred. State pressure was sometimes brought to bear on
broadcasters, through control over appointments, public funding and the
allocation of franchises. Even when the direct abuse of state power
49
was minimized, effective control over broadcasting was exercised, to a
lesser or greater extent, by a professional elite integrated into the
hierarchy of power. Their domination was legitimized in some countries
by a paternalistic definition of public-service broadcasting which
emphasized the leadership role of cultural bureaucrats in educating and
informing the masses. This led to insensitivity and lack of
responsiveness to the diversity of public taste, particularly in situations
where there was no effective competition. 50
These defects in the functioning of the collectivist approach draw
attention to the positive aspects of the market mechanism. A market-
based system does not guarantee the autonomy of the media from the
state since the same interests that dominate the media can also dominate
the state. But it does minimize the exercise of state leverage through
control of funding and appointments. Similarly, the processes of the free
market do not ensure, as we have seen, that the media mirror the
ideological and cultural diversity of the public. But when competition is
not deformed by oligopoly and restricted entry, it does result in greater
reponsiveness to audience preferences.
The question then becomes how can one combine collectivist and
market approaches in a synthesis that incorporates the strengths of both.
To judge from the European experience, there are four alternative
answers to this question (though each has a number of different
variations).