Page 289 - Comparing Media Systems THREE MODELS OF MEDIA AND POLITICS

P1: GCV
0521835356agg.xml Hallin 0 521 83535 6 January 21, 2004 16:18

The Forces and Limits of Homogenization

very efficient manner, and thus may have encouraged both the growth
of catchall parties and the atrophy of traditional means of communica-
tion that were tied to social networks in particular subcommunities. It
should also be kept in mind that television was not the only “catchall”
medium to expand in this period, particularly in the Democratic Corpo-
ratist and Liberal countries. Catchall commercial newspapers were also
increasingly central to the communication process. It could be said that
in general, the development of the media in the twentieth century led to
an increased flow of culture and information across group boundaries,
reducing the dependence of citizens on exclusive sources within their
particular subcommunities.

“Critical Expertise” in Journalism
The diffusion of television also coincided with the development of a
new journalistic culture that Padioleau (1985), in a comparative study of
Le Monde and The Washington Post, termed a culture of “critical exper-
tise.” In both Western Europe and North America (Hallin 1992), there
was a significant shift in the 1960s and 1970s from a form of journalism
that was relatively deferential toward established elites and institutions,
toward a relatively more active, independent form of journalism This
shift took place both in electronic and in print media. In the case of
Swedish television, for example, Djerf-Pierre (2000; see also Ekecrantz
1997; Olsson 2002) writes:

The journalist culture of 1965–1985 embraced a new ideal of news
journalism, that of critical scrutiny. The dominant approach was
now oriented toward exerting influence, both vis-`a-vis institutions
and the public at large. ... [J]ournalists sought to bridge informa-
tion gaps in society and to equip their audiences for active citi-
zenship and democratic participation. ... Journalists also had the
ambition to scrutinize the actions of policy makers and to influence
both public debate on social and political issues and the policies
made by public institutions (254).
This shift varied in form and extent, but seems to have been quite
generalized across national boundaries in the countries of all of our
three models. It involved the creation of a journalistic discourse that was
distinct from the discourse of parties and politicians, a conception of the
mediaasacollectivewatchdogofpublicpower(Djerf-PierreandWeibull
2000)andaconceptionofthejournalistasrepresentativeofageneralized
public opinion that cuts across the lines of political parties and social

271