Page 259 - Comparing Media Systems THREE MODELS OF MEDIA AND POLITICS

P1: GCV/KAA P2: kaf
0521835356c07.xml Hallin 0 521 83535 6 January 21, 2004 16:24

The North Atlantic or Liberal Model

Individualized Pluralism
Political representation in the Liberal systems tends to be seen more in
terms of the accountability of government to individual citizens than in
terms of the involvement of organized social groups – parties and “peak
associations”– in the political process. Again, the United States is the
extreme case, of what we called in Chapter 2 individualized pluralism,
with Britain tending a bit more toward continental European patterns
and Canada and Ireland probably somewhere between those two. The
United States does, of course, have many organized interest groups, and
they play an important role in the political process. But they do not have
strong legitimacy as political actors – they are referred to derisively as
“specialinterests”–andtheyarenotformallyintegratedintothepolitical
process in the way they often are especially in the Democratic Corpo-
ratist societies. Britain has a stronger tradition of corporatism as well
as a stronger tradition of party government. At the same time, however,
its interest groups are less unified and less integrated into the formal
political process than in continental forms of democratic corporatism –
like the United States it tends toward “free-for-all” pluralism in which
“a multiplicity of interest groups ... exert pressure on government in
an uncoordinated and competitive manner” (Lijphart 1999: 16). British
political culture also emphasizes the notion of the member of Parlia-
ment serving the public as a whole. This is consistent with the fact that
media in the Liberal societies have presented themselves not as mouth-
pieces of social groups, but as providers of information for individual
citizens, or as the voice of the “common man or woman.” Like Parlia-
ment itself, the fourth estate is seen as standing “above” particular social
interests.
Individualizedpluralismisalsoconsistentwiththeprofessionalmodel
of broadcast governance, which seeks to exclude organized social groups
from the governance of public broadcasting. John Reith’s views on
the BBC’s relation to organized social groups is a good illustration of
the contrast between British political culture and those of Democratic
Corporatist systems:

If the TUC [Trade Unions Congress] was a proud exponent of col-
lectivism, the BBC was an equally determined upholder of liberal
individualism. ... Reith ... saw his own resistance to TUC “pres-
sure” as part of a personal crusade against organizational pres-
sures in general. The ethic of hostility to organizations pervaded
his staff as well. In broad cultural terms, the BBC was far from

241