Page 190 - 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 Three Models

Concordia” was established in Austria in 1859 bringing together leading
Austrian journalists and foreign correspondents. Organizations also ex-
ist that establish rules for coverage of particular “beats”; in the German
case the most important is the Bundespressekonferenz – similar to the
Westminster Lobby in Britain or Japanese Press Clubs – that organizes
press conferences and establishes rules for much of the most important
political and parliamentary reporting. Very often these organizations
also have the power to decide penalties (mostly of a symbolic nature) for
journalists who do not respect the established rules.
Similar to other “peak associations” in Democratic Corporatist coun-
tries, the journalists’ unions today are usually unitary – without sectar-
ian or political divisions (though clubs that bring together journalists
with similar political or religious orientations sometimes also exist) –
with high rates of membership, ranging from near-universal member-
ship to levels around 50–60 percent (e.g., in Germany [Schoenbach,
Stuerzebecher, and Schneider 1998: 221] and in the Netherlands [van
Lenthe and Boerefijn 1993]), still quite high in comparative perspective.
These organizations have been active in the discussion of issues of ethics
and press freedom as well as purely economic issues. Heinonen (1998:
175) notes that almost all Finnish journalists report reading the union’s
twice-monthly newspaper regularly, and Humphreys (1994) notes that
the German journalists’ union has the character more of an “associa-
tion of practicing journalists and editors than of trade union.” Often,
again similar to other “peak organizations” in Democratic Corporatist
countries, journalists’ unions have a formal voice in discussions of media
policy, as do press owners’ associations.
The Democratic Corporatist countries also tend to have relatively
strong, formalized systems of self-regulation of the press. Every country
except Belgium has a press council. The strongest of these is the well-
known Swedish Press Council, whose origins go back to an honorary
court of justice set up by the Publicists’ Club in 1916 (Weibull and
B¨ orjesson 1992). Several elements make it particularly strong: it has the
powertolevy fines against newspapers as well as to require them to pub-
lish its decisions; it is headed by a judge, and representatives of the media
industry make up a minority of its members; and it is supplemented by
a Press Ombudsman who helps to investigate complaints, taking part of
the burden of preparing a case off of members of the public who wish to
bring complaints. It also has a high level of legitimacy among Swedish
journalists and publishers – probably more important in the end than
the power to levy fines. As Weibull and B¨ orjesson (1992) observe, the

172