Page 149 - Comparing Media Systems THREE MODELS OF MEDIA AND POLITICS

P1: GCV/INL P2: GCV
0521835356agg.xml Hallin 0 521 83535 6 January 20, 2004 17:24

The Mediterranean or Polarized Pluralist Model

Newspapers, and eventually some electronic media as well, were princi-
pal participants in struggles among diverse ideological camps, especially
as champions of liberalism in the nineteenth century, but eventually on
all sides. This cemented the ties between the media and the world of poli-
tics.Thesharpnessofideologicaldivisionsandthehighstakesofpolitical
conflict made it difficult for the media system to become differentiated
from politics; difficult for a professional culture and organization of
journalism to develop across party lines, for example; and difficult for
public broadcasting to be separated from party politics. Chalaby (1996:
310) stresses this point in his comparison of the histories of French and
Anglo-American journalism:

In [the United States and Britain] political struggles were confined
within the limits of parliamentary bipartism. Journalists could
claim to be “neutral” simply by proclaiming to support neither of
thepoliticalpartiesandtobe“impartial”bygivinganequalamount
of attention to both parties. This efficient codification of the po-
litical struggle facilitated the development of a discourse based on
news and information rather than political opinions....During
much of the [French] Third Republic, political positions spanned
from communism to royalism. The principles these parties put into
question (private property and universal suffrage) were both taken
for granted in Washington and London.
At the same time, a strong positive value was often placed on political
engagementofthemediaandonideologicaldiversity.Thisisparticularly
clear in the immediate post-Liberation period in France and Italy, when
an idealistic vision of a diverse and politically engaged press predomi-
nated. And as Putnam (1973: 81–2) pointed out, in a comparative study
of political elites in Britain and Italy, a distinctive discursive style pre-
vailed in Italy – and the same is clearly true of all the Polarized Pluralist
countries – one that emphasized “rational consistency, ‘synthetic’ com-
prehensiveness [and] adherence to explicit social and moral principles,”
a style that is also connected with higher levels of partisanship. “Intense
social conflict,” he adds, “calls for and seems to justify generalized expla-
nations of social affairs.” In journalism, this style is reflected in the fact
that facts are not seen as speaking for themselves, commentary is valued,
and neutrality appears as inconsistency, na¨ ıvet´ e, or opportunism.
Another, contrasting effect of polarized pluralism may have been to
dampen the enthusiasm of journalists for the “watch-dog” role, as jour-
nalists worried about endangering political stability and democratic

131