Page 163 - Comparing Media Systems THREE MODELS OF MEDIA AND POLITICS

P1: GLB/IRK/kaa P2: KAF
0521835356c06.xml Hallin 0 521 83535 6 January 28, 2004 21:0

The North/Central European Model

Europe, but in important ways still affects journalism, media structures,
and the way these interact with other social forces. At the same time
strong commercial media markets developed in all these countries, and
the Democratic Corporatist countries remain distinctive for their high
levels of newspaper circulation, as can be seen in the data presented
in Table 2.1. Norway, Finland, and Sweden have the highest circulation
rates in the world, along with Japan. A little lower down are Denmark,
Germany, the Netherlands, and Austria. Only Belgium among this group
ofcountriesisfurtherdownthelist.Asweshallseeinthisandinanumber
of other ways, Belgium lies partway between the Democratic Corporatist
and Polarized Pluralist models.
The second “coexistence,” which seems to us distinctive to the Demo-
cratic Corporatist Model, is closely related to the first: a high level of
political parallelism in the media has coexisted with a high level of jour-
nalistic professionalization in the sense we outlined in Chapter 2, includ-
ing a high degree of consensus on professional standards of conduct, a
notion of commitment to a common public interest, and a high level
of autonomy from other social powers. Again, the former characteristic
has weakened in relation to the latter; the decline of political parallelism
across Europe will be explored in detail in Chapter 8. Nevertheless, we
believe the historical coexistence of political parallelism and journal-
istic professionalism in the Democratic Corporatist countries is both
an important historical fact that needs explanation and something that
continues to be important to understanding their media systems. The
presence of these “coexistences” means that the Democratic Corporatist
countries share certain characteristics with the Polarized Pluralist Model
(a relatively high degree of political parallelism, advocacy, and external
pluralism in the press) and certain characteristics with the Liberal Model
(strong development of media markets and professionalism).
The third “coexistence” has to do with the role of the state. In the
DemocraticCorporatistcountriestraditionsofself-governmentgoback,
in certain forms, to early historical periods and – except in Austria and
Germany – liberal institutions were consolidated early. In this sense there
is a strong tradition of limits on state power – one of the most important
manifestations of which is the early development of press freedom. On
the other hand, strong welfare state policies and other forms of active
state intervention developed in the Democratic Corporatist countries in
the twentieth century, and these tendencies are manifested in important
forms of public-sector involvement in the media sphere that distinguish
the Democratic Corporatist from the Liberal countries.

145